Boris backs call for ‘Arthur’s law’ that would see child murderers die in prison

Watch
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
On a moral level, i see no particular issue with this. Infanticide being a most evil crime.
However, on a practical level this seems like a knee jerk reaction where noones actually bothered to think about the 'known unknows' and 2nd order effects of this law. One notable example being how it will be impacted by current/future legislation or, to put it bluntly, how it could be misused. To take an apt example, let us look to america where women can be charged with murder for miscarrying a fetus and so on. The path to hell is, after all, paved with good intentions.

Now, by no means is one saying murderous parents shouldnt be locked up but it would seem more appropriate, not to mention easier, to simply deal with this under existing legislation as opposed to passing a new hurried law on the matter. Then again, who wants to take a bet on whether the powers that be could actually give a toss and instead view this as a quick cheap political win using this poor late child as the poker chip?


https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/07/boris...ison-15728156/
0
reply
StriderHort
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
My first glib through is 'Boris Bluster', can't take him or the government seriously, whatever they vaguely propose this morning they'll have denied by tiffin.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by Napp)
On a moral level, i see no particular issue with this. Infanticide being a most evil crime.
However, on a practical level this seems like a knee jerk reaction where noones actually bothered to think about the 'known unknows' and 2nd order effects of this law. One notable example being how it will be impacted by current/future legislation or, to put it bluntly, how it could be misused. To take an apt example, let us look to america where women can be charged with murder for miscarrying a fetus and so on. The path to hell is, after all, paved with good intentions.

Now, by no means is one saying murderous parents shouldnt be locked up but it would seem more appropriate, not to mention easier, to simply deal with this under existing legislation as opposed to passing a new hurried law on the matter. Then again, who wants to take a bet on whether the powers that be could actually give a toss and instead view this as a quick cheap political win using this poor late child as the poker chip?


https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/07/boris...ison-15728156/
To me, if they’re going to go with pursuing a new law as a result of this case then what they should pursue is the ultimate punishment, no doubt about it.

The fact is at the moment existing punishments are not being given out by the judiciary, so unless it’s going to be absolutely enshrined in law that it results in a life sentence then what’s the point; because the judiciary just won’t hand it out.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by Napp)
On a moral level, i see no particular issue with this. Infanticide being a most evil crime.
May I just make a small point of clarification. In English law, infanticide doesn't mean killing any child.

For 100 years it has been a compassionate offence by which mothers who have not recovered from childbirth but who kill their child are prosecuted for this offence. It normally results in a probation order.

It has nothing to do with murdering a 6 year old.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by Napp)
On a moral level, i see no particular issue with this. Infanticide being a most evil crime.
However, on a practical level this seems like a knee jerk reaction where noones actually bothered to think about the 'known unknows' and 2nd order effects of this law. One notable example being how it will be impacted by current/future legislation or, to put it bluntly, how it could be misused. To take an apt example, let us look to america where women can be charged with murder for miscarrying a fetus and so on. The path to hell is, after all, paved with good intentions.

Now, by no means is one saying murderous parents shouldnt be locked up but it would seem more appropriate, not to mention easier, to simply deal with this under existing legislation as opposed to passing a new hurried law on the matter. Then again, who wants to take a bet on whether the powers that be could actually give a toss and instead view this as a quick cheap political win using this poor late child as the poker chip?


https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/07/boris...ison-15728156/

Assuming they treat 16 as the relevant age for Arthur's law, the 18 year old** thug who knifes a 15 year old thug in a gang turf war will get a wholly disproportionate sentence compared with the 18 year old thug who knifes a 16 year old thug in a gang turf war.

** I will assume (although I suspect the issue hasn't troubled the part of his anatomy that Boris uses for thinking) that Arthur's law won't apply to offenders under 18
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
To me, if they’re going to go with pursuing a new law as a result of this case then what they should pursue is the ultimate punishment, no doubt about it.

The fact is at the moment existing punishments are not being given out by the judiciary, so unless it’s going to be absolutely enshrined in law that it results in a life sentence then what’s the point; because the judiciary just won’t hand it out.
I am just wondering if judges juries will ever use the new laws to punish child murders. They seem reluctant now to give the maximum sentence.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by looloo2134)
I am just wondering if judges juries will ever use the new laws to punish child murders. They seem reluctant now to give the maximum sentence.
This case is a prime example. Manslaughter in this country carries with it a life sentence. If somehow this case does not warrant a life sentence for manslaughter you have to wonder what on Earth does. Judiciary way out of touch yet again.
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
The trigger for this is a parent killing their own child with another who had a duty of care to him. To me, this is worse than killing someone else's child (their duty of care, and bypassing millions of years of evolution), is a lot harder to prove, but doesn't seem to be addressed?

I'd agree with life behind bars, but this (or at least, how it's reported) doesn't seem thought through enough to be as relevant to Arthur is it should be.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by nulli tertius)
May I just make a small point of clarification. In English law, infanticide doesn't mean killing any child.

For 100 years it has been a compassionate offence by which mothers who have not recovered from childbirth but who kill their child are prosecuted for this offence. It normally results in a probation order.

It has nothing to do with murdering a 6 year old.
Duly noted and thanks for the lesson
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Assuming they treat 16 as the relevant age for Arthur's law, the 18 year old** thug who knifes a 15 year old thug in a gang turf war will get a wholly disproportionate sentence compared with the 18 year old thug who knifes a 16 year old thug in a gang turf war.

** I will assume (although I suspect the issue hasn't troubled the part of his anatomy that Boris uses for thinking) that Arthur's law won't apply to offenders under 18
Given whole life orders are currently only available for those over the age of 21, and for the very sensible reason you articulated in your post, I suspect you are right.
0
reply
Surnia
Badges: 19
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Napp)
To take an apt example, let us look to america where women can be charged with murder for miscarrying a fetus and so on.
You have it sound like it's as basic as having a spontaneous miscarriage, which it isn't; women who miscarry can be charged under foetal assault laws if the foetus was viable and it is suspected their actions contributed to the miscarriage.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by Napp)
On a moral level, i see no particular issue with this. Infanticide being a most evil crime.
What makes killing a 17 year old so much worse than killing a 19 year old?
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by legalhelp)
Given whole life orders are currently only available for those over the age of 21, and for the very sensible reason you articulated in your post, I suspect you are right.
Once a killer always a killer. Whole life orders should start at the age of legal responsibility.
0
reply
st8whitemale
Badges: 1
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
You can't be against death penalty and suddenly support it because you're emotionally invested in 1 persons death.

Parents kill their kids all the time don't always receive the media attention this has.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by st8whitemale)
You can't be against death penalty and suddenly support it because you're emotionally invested in 1 persons death.

Parents kill their kids all the time don't always receive the media attention this has.
Actually polls consistently suggest the British public are in favour of the death penalty if I remember correctly.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 4 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by st8whitemale)
You can't be against death penalty and suddenly support it because you're emotionally invested in 1 persons death.

Parents kill their kids all the time don't always receive the media attention this has.
You are right around 50 children under 15 are murdered by a guardian each year. In lockdown 20% raise in child abuse cases. Also many child deaths caused by a care giver there is not another evidence to convicted the abusers.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
Actually polls consistently suggest the British public are in favour of the death penalty if I remember correctly.
You don't remember correctly. The British Social Attitudes survey turned negative in 2015 (if they have asked the question since, I can't find the answer). That is generally regarded as the "gold standard" of surveying and the decline has been consistant.

http://ipsos-mori-generations.com/Death-Penalty.html

YouGov has been surveying regularly since 2019 and has a little higher figure for support.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...ty?content=all

The regularity of UKGov's survey means that it is not susceptible to the problem of a lot of newspaper surveys which is only to survey when there is public outrage. I think the criticism that could and would be made of the You Gov survey is that the whole range of questions asked about criminal justice amount to priming. Priming is explained here.

0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by Quady)
What makes killing a 17 year old so much worse than killing a 19 year old?
I presume these 2 ages are given as theyre either side of the age of 'adulthood'?
Either way, not much. I was talking about children, not de facto/de jure adults.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report Thread starter 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by Surnia)
You have it sound like it's as basic as having a spontaneous miscarriage, which it isn't; women who miscarry can be charged under foetal assault laws if the foetus was viable and it is suspected their actions contributed to the miscarriage.
I am perfectly aware of what the law is and why it is so controversial given in half the cases brought to caught the evidence has been less than compelling. Merely having a narcotic or some such in your system, for example, does not eo ipso mean it terminated said fetus.. as the DA's like to pretend it did.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
I presume these 2 ages are given as theyre either side of the age of 'adulthood'?
Either way, not much. I was talking about children, not de facto/de jure adults.
Whats a child then if not an adult? X
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you ever considered or are you currently considering an apprenticeship?

Yes, I am actively considering an apprenticeship (51)
12.2%
I am actively considering an alternative to uni that isn't an apprenticeship (8)
1.91%
I have considered an apprenticeship but it's not for me (106)
25.36%
I am considering a degree apprenticeship (38)
9.09%
I haven't considered an apprenticeship (200)
47.85%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (15)
3.59%

Watched Threads

View All