StuartO Posted November 26, 2017 Author Share Posted November 26, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-11-27 8:57 AM.... Personally, I'm happy for that decision to be taken by the medical professions. I'm also happy for their treatment to be coercive and not voluntary, as an absolute pre-condition for release, on the basis that there is no release if they don't co-operate, and that once they enter therapy they don't get released until judged fit.But, to try to hand these judgements over to lawyers alone just smacks to me of kangaroo courts. Of the selective abolition of due process for people who are seen as a repeated nuisance. As I said above, I think that approach gives the state the right to select who fits the category and then determine who is incarcerated, and who not. What then, of habeas corpus? The difference between us Brian, is that you seem to see suitability for release purely a question of the state of mental health (all offenders who might not be safe to release are assumed to be ill and all illness are curable, therefore ....) and I don't. You also see, perhaps with the eye of blinkered faith, psychiatrists as a reliable source of expert judgement - and I certainly don't. Most people who go into mental health as a career are doing so as part of their personal uncertainty about their own mental health, including psychiatrists. Only a minority of psychiatrists are balanced and sensible people, capable of making a rational judgement. Psychiatrists are known for selling all their geese as swans; they empathise with their patients and want to help them - and this unbalances their judgement. Using courts and judges to make judgements isn't the same thing as handing the problem over to lawyers. Lawyers come in all shapes and sizes (and ulterior motives) but hopefully the majority of lawyers whom we appoint as judges are willing and capable of serving justice. As Lord Denning said, we must trust the judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 2:50 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 10:28 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Where you see simplicity, I see complexity Dave. You can’t say that the lack of the death penalty was responsible for the deaths of these people because their killers might not have been convicted of murder previously if there had been a death penalty. Don’t forget that murderers often plead not guilty and have to go on trial. Modern juries, aware that the death penalty would be imposed if they convict, may be more inclined to give a murderer the benefit of the doubt so that more murderers go free only to kill again. What’s more we still don’t know whether more people would have been murdered over the same period if we had the death penalty. For example, there’s the “in for a penny in for a pound” mentality of some, namely “I’ve killed one of this group of people I am going to die for it might as well take all of ’em with me”. Retribution is understandably high on the agenda when it comes to the sentencing of murderers but I am not convinced that there is any evidence to show that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the numbers of people that are unlawfully killed or that the UK would be a safer place if it was brought back. There are both practical and moral arguments in favour or against. Abandoning the moral argument against the deliberate killing of a person by the state, as I know it doesn’t find favour with everyone, I maintain that there is little evidential support for the practical argument that we need the death penalty so as to secure a reduction in the number of people who are murdered. I venture what would be uppermost in the minds of those asked to take part in a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty would be retribution; an emotional and understandable human response, but neither a rational or informed one if the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of murder victims. Having been stabbed by a paranoid schizophrenic ex wife, and surviving several other attempts I guess my views are somewhat bias :-| .......... Funnily enough I didn't discover she was a paranoid schizophrenic until she was committed to an asylum of her own volition :-( ....... So please don't bother to condescend me with legal argument >:-( ...... As far as I'm concerned my ex was entitled to proper medical care....... The others without a medical excuse deserve hanging......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:18 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 2:50 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 10:28 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Where you see simplicity, I see complexity Dave. You can’t say that the lack of the death penalty was responsible for the deaths of these people because their killers might not have been convicted of murder previously if there had been a death penalty. Don’t forget that murderers often plead not guilty and have to go on trial. Modern juries, aware that the death penalty would be imposed if they convict, may be more inclined to give a murderer the benefit of the doubt so that more murderers go free only to kill again. What’s more we still don’t know whether more people would have been murdered over the same period if we had the death penalty. For example, there’s the “in for a penny in for a pound” mentality of some, namely “I’ve killed one of this group of people I am going to die for it might as well take all of ’em with me”. Retribution is understandably high on the agenda when it comes to the sentencing of murderers but I am not convinced that there is any evidence to show that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the numbers of people that are unlawfully killed or that the UK would be a safer place if it was brought back. There are both practical and moral arguments in favour or against. Abandoning the moral argument against the deliberate killing of a person by the state, as I know it doesn’t find favour with everyone, I maintain that there is little evidential support for the practical argument that we need the death penalty so as to secure a reduction in the number of people who are murdered. I venture what would be uppermost in the minds of those asked to take part in a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty would be retribution; an emotional and understandable human response, but neither a rational or informed one if the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of murder victims. Having been stabbed by a paranoid schizophrenic ex wife, and surviving several other attempts I guess my views are somewhat bias :-| .......... Funnily enough I didn't discover she was a paranoid schizophrenic until she was committed to an asylum of her own volition :-( ....... So please don't bother to condescend me with legal argument >:-( ...... As far as I'm concerned my ex was entitled to proper medical care....... The others without a medical excuse deserve hanging......... I didn't intend to condescend Dave sorry you feel that way. I was just putting forward some of the arguments against the death penalty. As I said previously you are entitled to your view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 5:57 PM Bulletguy - 2017-11-25 9:06 PM StuartO - 2017-11-25 7:00 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-11-26 9:23 AM.....However, if what we want is total freedom from risk, we shall have to hold our noses and give up on due process for individuals on the basis of their patterns of behaviour rather than on diagnosis of mental illness. That concept does, as I said above, make me uneasy, because it gives the state far wider powers of detention than at present. It feels to me like a slippery slope, and I'd sooner we didn't embark down it. And it should be a judicial decision, not a pschiatric or any other sort of "expert" decision, although of course the judge might choose to listen to experts. But this is Society's risk assesment, not another trial in which the offender has rights to argue and to use lawyers. The offender is merely the subject of the assesment and the decision is based on the balance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Where a convict is seeking parole or due release it's impossible to dispense with psychiatric reports and assessments for them not to be heard and it would be pretty crass to ignore, especially if that person has had a history of mental health and received treatment whilst in prison.It's not a matter of 'choosing' to listen to experts.....he has to. If you've been in hospital for any length of time after an operation, before being discharged your Consultant will need all your records from medical staff, particularly junior doctors in order to conclude a decision. He cannot simply discharge you because he thinks you look ok. Yes. If the expert medical opinions are not sought, or are ignored, due process has failed. The most likely consequence of that would be an appeal, and off we should go again. What judge would be willing to proceed on that basis? So, what would be the basis for deciding who was released and who detained? Just their record of repeat offending? It seems to me that the offender's mental state and "lifestyle" must also be taken into account. Who, as a matter of choice, would adopt a life of being in and out of prison? It has no appeal to me, but then I'm (more or less :-D) rational. I value the freedom to come and go when I choose and how I choose. I derive no pleasure from violence. I don't go looking for arguments and fights. I'm aware that a minority do, but I don't/can't understand why. To me they are abnormal, out of control, sociopaths or similar, and need to be corrected, or excluded from society. I don't do drugs, though I'm aware that some do, and that some of them have so damaged themselves in the process that their craving dominates their behaviour. They also need to be corrected, or excluded from society. Though my point related to parole application, the same does indeed apply to conviction but due process is something the 'hang 'em high' mob rule vigilantism seems to have lost sight of completely. It's practically anathema to them. A good current example of this is the plethora of allegations which have emanated like nuclear fallout from the Harvey Weinstein case. I embolden 'allegations' to emphasise that's exactly all any are as yet with not one case tested in court, yet mainstream and social media seem to prefer to dispense with the inconvenience of due process and have already reached a 'guilty' verdict! This is an insane path to go down and has devastating long term consequences. I doubt if it is feasible to put a timescale on how long it would take before it is possible to conclude that an individual is now "safe" to release, or must be detained indefinitely. Personally, I'm happy for that decision to be taken by the medical professions. I'm also happy for their treatment to be coercive and not voluntary, as an absolute pre-condition for release, on the basis that there is no release if they don't co-operate, and that once they enter therapy they don't get released until judged fit. It's certainly not a matter which can be judged by non-professional 'joe public'. There will always be extreme cases such as Hindley and Brady who would never have been released though Brady had accepted his incarceration would be for life, Hindley never did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-11-26 9:31 PM It's certainly not a matter which can be judged by non-professional 'joe public'. There will always be extreme cases such as Hindley and Brady who would never have been released though Brady had accepted his incarceration would be for life, Hindley never did. Given the repeated cock ups the so called professionals have made *-) ....... I doubt "Joe public" could do any worse :-| ..... Indeed I doubt they'd let so many free >:-( ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 26, 2017 Share Posted November 26, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:11 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:18 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 2:50 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 10:28 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Where you see simplicity, I see complexity Dave. You can’t say that the lack of the death penalty was responsible for the deaths of these people because their killers might not have been convicted of murder previously if there had been a death penalty. Don’t forget that murderers often plead not guilty and have to go on trial. Modern juries, aware that the death penalty would be imposed if they convict, may be more inclined to give a murderer the benefit of the doubt so that more murderers go free only to kill again. What’s more we still don’t know whether more people would have been murdered over the same period if we had the death penalty. For example, there’s the “in for a penny in for a pound” mentality of some, namely “I’ve killed one of this group of people I am going to die for it might as well take all of ’em with me”. Retribution is understandably high on the agenda when it comes to the sentencing of murderers but I am not convinced that there is any evidence to show that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the numbers of people that are unlawfully killed or that the UK would be a safer place if it was brought back. There are both practical and moral arguments in favour or against. Abandoning the moral argument against the deliberate killing of a person by the state, as I know it doesn’t find favour with everyone, I maintain that there is little evidential support for the practical argument that we need the death penalty so as to secure a reduction in the number of people who are murdered. I venture what would be uppermost in the minds of those asked to take part in a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty would be retribution; an emotional and understandable human response, but neither a rational or informed one if the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of murder victims. Having been stabbed by a paranoid schizophrenic ex wife, and surviving several other attempts I guess my views are somewhat bias :-| .......... Funnily enough I didn't discover she was a paranoid schizophrenic until she was committed to an asylum of her own volition :-( ....... So please don't bother to condescend me with legal argument >:-( ...... As far as I'm concerned my ex was entitled to proper medical care....... The others without a medical excuse deserve hanging......... I didn't intend to condescend Dave sorry you feel that way. I was just putting forward some of the arguments against the death penalty. As I said previously you are entitled to your view. Therein lies the problem :-| ....... Too much argument means........ Too many victims *-) ........ Its time to stop defending the criminals >:-( ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 10:30 AMStuartO - 2017-11-26 9:47 AMderek pringle - 2017-11-27 12:35 AMhi, The greatest mistake was when we abolished the death sentence [something I agreed with by the way ] we shouldn't have done so without substituting it for Life meaning Life Prison Sentences. To remove a deterrent and not replace it with a substitute was a mistake. I know judges have the power to determine but a killer should KNOW what his/her sentence will be if found guilty.cheersderek I agree. Some people who get convicted of murder get a tariff of less than ten years. The premeditated killing of someone else, which is the definition of murder, should mean you face life imprisonment, full stop.The offence of Murder in the UK law is committed when someone dies as a result of an intentional act on the part of another either to kill or to cause them grievous bodily harm. Premeditation doesn't feature in the definition of murder but the degree of premeditation can be reflected in the minimum term to be served set by the Judge. The penalty for murder is fixed by law and it is a life sentence. Judges set the minimum term to be served according to a set of principles that can be found here:https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdfI think if you read through those principles it would be rare for someone to be given a minimum tariff of 10 years for the premeditated act of killing a person whom they intended to kill. VeronicaHi Veronica, The point being made is that the sentence for murder,premeditated killing, should not be left to judges,they can be as inconsistent as politicians, but carry an automatic life sentence meaning not 15 yrs unless otherwise determined by the judge but Whole of Life. Murder without premeditation normally ends up as manslaughter or some such. The fact is that even people convicted of multiple murders have been released in less than 15 years.Ionly agree with no death penalty on the grounds of innocent people possibly being killed by the state.cheersderek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 Hi Derek I understand that people have concerns about there being too much flexibility in sentencing for murder and in other cases where someone has died due to the unlawful act of another. The fact remains that few cases are the same so a degree of flexibility is necessary to reflect the circumstances in which the crime was committed and that usually involves a whole host of factors. The link to the sentencing guidelines I posted shows the guidelines given to Judges when sentencing someone for murder provide a Judge with an established structure for sentencing that weighs mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If a Judge departs from the usual tariff they have to justify it. Judges are required to state their reasons when passing sentence. They are not infallible so if the reasons they give don’t past muster the Attorney General can appeal a sentence which is viewed too lenient in some categories of case of which murder is one. There are reports in the press of sentences which fail to reflect all of the circumstances that a Judge has to consider. I'm not surprised by that given that the reasons Judges give for their decision are pages long which cannot be summarised in a few lines. There is a lesson here for our criminal courts. Their judgements need to be published in a readily accessible form. Sad to say they are not. I can recommend that anyone that who fancies their chances at achieving the right decision when sentencing an offender have a go at sentencing themselves in the scenarios presented on the following website. http://open.justice.gov.uk/get-involved/you-be-the-judge/ I found it an eye opener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-11-26 9:47 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:11 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:18 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 2:50 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 10:28 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Where you see simplicity, I see complexity Dave. You can’t say that the lack of the death penalty was responsible for the deaths of these people because their killers might not have been convicted of murder previously if there had been a death penalty. Don’t forget that murderers often plead not guilty and have to go on trial. Modern juries, aware that the death penalty would be imposed if they convict, may be more inclined to give a murderer the benefit of the doubt so that more murderers go free only to kill again. What’s more we still don’t know whether more people would have been murdered over the same period if we had the death penalty. For example, there’s the “in for a penny in for a pound” mentality of some, namely “I’ve killed one of this group of people I am going to die for it might as well take all of ’em with me”. Retribution is understandably high on the agenda when it comes to the sentencing of murderers but I am not convinced that there is any evidence to show that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the numbers of people that are unlawfully killed or that the UK would be a safer place if it was brought back. There are both practical and moral arguments in favour or against. Abandoning the moral argument against the deliberate killing of a person by the state, as I know it doesn’t find favour with everyone, I maintain that there is little evidential support for the practical argument that we need the death penalty so as to secure a reduction in the number of people who are murdered. I venture what would be uppermost in the minds of those asked to take part in a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty would be retribution; an emotional and understandable human response, but neither a rational or informed one if the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of murder victims. Having been stabbed by a paranoid schizophrenic ex wife, and surviving several other attempts I guess my views are somewhat bias :-| .......... Funnily enough I didn't discover she was a paranoid schizophrenic until she was committed to an asylum of her own volition :-( ....... So please don't bother to condescend me with legal argument >:-( ...... As far as I'm concerned my ex was entitled to proper medical care....... The others without a medical excuse deserve hanging......... I didn't intend to condescend Dave sorry you feel that way. I was just putting forward some of the arguments against the death penalty. As I said previously you are entitled to your view. Therein lies the problem :-| ....... Too much argument means........ Too many victims *-) ........ Its time to stop defending the criminals >:-( ...... If you were to present a rational and well-argued alternative to the views I have expressed then I am all ears Dave. All too often when presented with what seems like a better argument you choose to characterise that argument in a way that is wholly misleading. In no way is it possible to construe anything I have said amounts to a form of defence of criminals. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted November 27, 2017 Share Posted November 27, 2017 derek pringle - 2017-11-27 10:22 AMViolet1956 - 2017-11-26 10:30 AMStuartO - 2017-11-26 9:47 AMderek pringle - 2017-11-27 12:35 AMhi, The greatest mistake was when we abolished the death sentence [something I agreed with by the way ] we shouldn't have done so without substituting it for Life meaning Life Prison Sentences. To remove a deterrent and not replace it with a substitute was a mistake. I know judges have the power to determine but a killer should KNOW what his/her sentence will be if found guilty.cheersderek I agree. Some people who get convicted of murder get a tariff of less than ten years. The premeditated killing of someone else, which is the definition of murder, should mean you face life imprisonment, full stop.The offence of Murder in the UK law is committed when someone dies as a result of an intentional act on the part of another either to kill or to cause them grievous bodily harm. Premeditation doesn't feature in the definition of murder but the degree of premeditation can be reflected in the minimum term to be served set by the Judge. The penalty for murder is fixed by law and it is a life sentence. Judges set the minimum term to be served according to a set of principles that can be found here:https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/FINAL-Murder-sentencing-leaflet-for-web1.pdfI think if you read through those principles it would be rare for someone to be given a minimum tariff of 10 years for the premeditated act of killing a person whom they intended to kill. VeronicaHi Veronica, The point being made is that the sentence for murder,premeditated killing, should not be left to judges,they can be as inconsistent as politicians, but carry an automatic life sentence meaning not 15 yrs unless otherwise determined by the judge but Whole of Life. How many lay people have even a basic understanding of Law Derek? It's not without good reason it takes an absolute minimum five years to qualify as a Lawyer which you need either a Law degree or Graduate Diploma first.Turn the table around and lets look at it from your side to give another perspective.Worst case scenario you find yourself arrested and charged with a very serious offence such as murder, rape or armed robbery. You have no solid alibi and no witnesses......however you know you are entirely innocent.Who are you going to ask to represent you in court? A qualified reputable Lawyer..........or a supermarket shelf stacker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-27 7:05 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 9:47 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:11 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:18 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 2:50 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 10:28 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-26 9:33 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-26 8:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 12:53 PM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 12:03 PM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:24 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 11:11 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 11:09 AM pelmetman - 2017-11-25 10:56 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-25 10:07 AM For me the prospect that one person wrongly convicted is hanged is enough to say we should never bring the death sentence back. How many people have been wrongly executed, compared to how many have been murdered by killers released? :-| ......... Zilch .......So prospect outweighs actual murder? *-) ......... A utilitarian argument which may find favour with some but how do you know the answer to the question you posed is Zilch? Well seeing as we don't currently have the death penalty I'd of thought it was obvious ;-) ...... It may have escaped your notice Dave but we did have it at one time. In any event how confident could you be that there would be fewer victims of murder than people sentenced to death for crimes they didn't commit if the death penalty was introduced? Given the advances in CSI and DNA testing.... I'd say the chances of a miscarriage of justice is pretty remote......where as we know 47 people have been killed in the last 10 years :-| ........ For homicide offences recorded between the year ending March 2006 and the year ending March 2016 in total, 47 people who were convicted of a homicide offence had a previous conviction for homicide (less than 1% of all homicide convictions). Of these 47 offences, the second conviction was for murder in 40 cases (Appendix Table 2.16). So if I have got this right less than 1% of all people convicted of homicide over a ten year period had previously committed murder. I think it likely that you are right that CSI and DNA testing would result in fewer miscarriages of justice but I don't believe that it would be conclusive in every case. I don't seek to make light of the deaths of 40 people. However, the difference between you and I on this subject is that I can't support state sponsored killing of the innocent whereas you believe it is an evil that is to be tolerated because there is a greater good to be achieved by the likely reduction in the killing of the innocent. Your's is an "act utilitarian" argument which I believe is flawed in that the state would be reserving for itself a power to do exactly what it seeks to prevent. So what if its a utilitarian argument? *-) ........ As far as I'm concerned the deaths those 47 victims, far outweigh the minuscule chance of someone being convicted of murder by mistake >:-( ........ You are assuming that having the death penalty would produce a better outcome in terms of the reduction of the loss of life. You can’t draw that conclusion from the statistics you quote. You might have got rid of the murderers who went on to kill a further forty people over a 10-year period but you don’t know whether having the death penalty during that period would have seen the death rate from unlawful killing rate rise even further. I know that they'd be 47 people probably still alive today, if their killers had received the death penalty ......... For me that is enough to bring back the black cap :-| ........and if we had a referendum on it I suspect much like BREXIT I'd be with the majority >:-) ......... Where you see simplicity, I see complexity Dave. You can’t say that the lack of the death penalty was responsible for the deaths of these people because their killers might not have been convicted of murder previously if there had been a death penalty. Don’t forget that murderers often plead not guilty and have to go on trial. Modern juries, aware that the death penalty would be imposed if they convict, may be more inclined to give a murderer the benefit of the doubt so that more murderers go free only to kill again. What’s more we still don’t know whether more people would have been murdered over the same period if we had the death penalty. For example, there’s the “in for a penny in for a pound” mentality of some, namely “I’ve killed one of this group of people I am going to die for it might as well take all of ’em with me”. Retribution is understandably high on the agenda when it comes to the sentencing of murderers but I am not convinced that there is any evidence to show that the reintroduction of the death penalty would reduce the numbers of people that are unlawfully killed or that the UK would be a safer place if it was brought back. There are both practical and moral arguments in favour or against. Abandoning the moral argument against the deliberate killing of a person by the state, as I know it doesn’t find favour with everyone, I maintain that there is little evidential support for the practical argument that we need the death penalty so as to secure a reduction in the number of people who are murdered. I venture what would be uppermost in the minds of those asked to take part in a referendum on the re-introduction of the death penalty would be retribution; an emotional and understandable human response, but neither a rational or informed one if the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of murder victims. Having been stabbed by a paranoid schizophrenic ex wife, and surviving several other attempts I guess my views are somewhat bias :-| .......... Funnily enough I didn't discover she was a paranoid schizophrenic until she was committed to an asylum of her own volition :-( ....... So please don't bother to condescend me with legal argument >:-( ...... As far as I'm concerned my ex was entitled to proper medical care....... The others without a medical excuse deserve hanging......... I didn't intend to condescend Dave sorry you feel that way. I was just putting forward some of the arguments against the death penalty. As I said previously you are entitled to your view. Therein lies the problem :-| ....... Too much argument means........ Too many victims *-) ........ Its time to stop defending the criminals >:-( ...... If you were to present a rational and well-argued alternative to the views I have expressed then I am all ears Dave. All too often when presented with what seems like a better argument you choose to characterise that argument in a way that is wholly misleading. In no way is it possible to construe anything I have said amounts to a form of defence of criminals. Veronica You mean your argument that defends the system that defends the criminals *-) ....... British justice is no longer blind.......Its deaf dumb & stupid :-| ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-27 6:21 PM Hi Derek I understand that people have concerns about there being too much flexibility in sentencing for murder and in other cases where someone has died due to the unlawful act of another. The fact remains that few cases are the same so a degree of flexibility is necessary to reflect the circumstances in which the crime was committed and that usually involves a whole host of factors. The link to the sentencing guidelines I posted shows the guidelines given to Judges when sentencing someone for murder provide a Judge with an established structure for sentencing that weighs mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If a Judge departs from the usual tariff they have to justify it. Judges are required to state their reasons when passing sentence. They are not infallible so if the reasons they give don’t past muster the Attorney General can appeal a sentence which is viewed too lenient in some categories of case of which murder is one. There are reports in the press of sentences which fail to reflect all of the circumstances that a Judge has to consider. I'm not surprised by that given that the reasons Judges give for their decision are pages long which cannot be summarised in a few lines. There is a lesson here for our criminal courts. Their judgements need to be published in a readily accessible form. Sad to say they are not. I can recommend that anyone that who fancies their chances at achieving the right decision when sentencing an offender have a go at sentencing themselves in the scenarios presented on the following website. http://open.justice.gov.uk/get-involved/you-be-the-judge/ I found it an eye opener. hi Violet, Thanks for the link, fascinating. In the example I watched I gave 30yrs and the judge gave 25yrs.It seems to me the principle of the sentencing is back to front as I believe the automatic sentence for murder should be whole life and if there are any PROVEN mitigating factors then they could be taken in to account but to me they must be compelling.As things stand it seems we start at 15yrs and have to find compelling aggravating factors in order to increase this sentence,or appeal by prosecutors. People contemplating embarking on the path of crime should know before they leave the house that there is very little or no chance of being back on the streets for a very long time not 15 yrs reduced by behaviour in prison or whatever else helps them get parole earlier.We have had numerous cases of people being jailed for murder,coming out and committing again.Start at the max. and then possibly reduce is the way I see things should be done. cheers derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet1956 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 derek pringle - 2017-11-28 9:22 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-27 6:21 PM Hi Derek I understand that people have concerns about there being too much flexibility in sentencing for murder and in other cases where someone has died due to the unlawful act of another. The fact remains that few cases are the same so a degree of flexibility is necessary to reflect the circumstances in which the crime was committed and that usually involves a whole host of factors. The link to the sentencing guidelines I posted shows the guidelines given to Judges when sentencing someone for murder provide a Judge with an established structure for sentencing that weighs mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If a Judge departs from the usual tariff they have to justify it. Judges are required to state their reasons when passing sentence. They are not infallible so if the reasons they give don’t past muster the Attorney General can appeal a sentence which is viewed too lenient in some categories of case of which murder is one. There are reports in the press of sentences which fail to reflect all of the circumstances that a Judge has to consider. I'm not surprised by that given that the reasons Judges give for their decision are pages long which cannot be summarised in a few lines. There is a lesson here for our criminal courts. Their judgements need to be published in a readily accessible form. Sad to say they are not. I can recommend that anyone that who fancies their chances at achieving the right decision when sentencing an offender have a go at sentencing themselves in the scenarios presented on the following website. http://open.justice.gov.uk/get-involved/you-be-the-judge/ I found it an eye opener. hi Violet, Thanks for the link, fascinating. In the example I watched I gave 30yrs and the judge gave 25yrs.It seems to me the principle of the sentencing is back to front as I believe the automatic sentence for murder should be whole life and if there are any PROVEN mitigating factors then they could be taken in to account but to me they must be compelling.As things stand it seems we start at 15yrs and have to find compelling aggravating factors in order to increase this sentence,or appeal by prosecutors. People contemplating embarking on the path of crime should know before they leave the house that there is very little or no chance of being back on the streets for a very long time not 15 yrs reduced by behaviour in prison or whatever else helps them get parole earlier.We have had numerous cases of people being jailed for murder,coming out and committing again.Start at the max. and then possibly reduce is the way I see things should be done. cheers derek I watched the sentencing of the murderer example too Derek. I intend to watch the others and recommend the link to everyone because it covers a wide range of sentencing exercises not just murder. The automatic sentence for murder as I understand it is a whole life sentence. So the starting point is you go to jail for the rest of your life unless there are reasons to reduce that sentence. Judges set the minimum term to be served before a prisoner can apply to the parole board for release and then the parole board decides whether it is safe to release him/her after that minimum term. They remain on parole for the rest of their lives upon release. According to an article on fullfact.org published on their website in August 2016 there were 59 prisoners in the UK serving whole life terms who are never going to be released. Veronica Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek pringle Posted November 29, 2017 Share Posted November 29, 2017 Violet1956 - 2017-11-28 9:52 AM derek pringle - 2017-11-28 9:22 AM Violet1956 - 2017-11-27 6:21 PM Hi Derek I understand that people have concerns about there being too much flexibility in sentencing for murder and in other cases where someone has died due to the unlawful act of another. The fact remains that few cases are the same so a degree of flexibility is necessary to reflect the circumstances in which the crime was committed and that usually involves a whole host of factors. The link to the sentencing guidelines I posted shows the guidelines given to Judges when sentencing someone for murder provide a Judge with an established structure for sentencing that weighs mitigating and aggravating circumstances. If a Judge departs from the usual tariff they have to justify it. Judges are required to state their reasons when passing sentence. They are not infallible so if the reasons they give don’t past muster the Attorney General can appeal a sentence which is viewed too lenient in some categories of case of which murder is one. There are reports in the press of sentences which fail to reflect all of the circumstances that a Judge has to consider. I'm not surprised by that given that the reasons Judges give for their decision are pages long which cannot be summarised in a few lines. There is a lesson here for our criminal courts. Their judgements need to be published in a readily accessible form. Sad to say they are not. I can recommend that anyone that who fancies their chances at achieving the right decision when sentencing an offender have a go at sentencing themselves in the scenarios presented on the following website. http://open.justice.gov.uk/get-involved/you-be-the-judge/ I found it an eye opener. hi Violet, Thanks for the link, fascinating. In the example I watched I gave 30yrs and the judge gave 25yrs.It seems to me the principle of the sentencing is back to front as I believe the automatic sentence for murder should be whole life and if there are any PROVEN mitigating factors then they could be taken in to account but to me they must be compelling.As things stand it seems we start at 15yrs and have to find compelling aggravating factors in order to increase this sentence,or appeal by prosecutors. People contemplating embarking on the path of crime should know before they leave the house that there is very little or no chance of being back on the streets for a very long time not 15 yrs reduced by behaviour in prison or whatever else helps them get parole earlier.We have had numerous cases of people being jailed for murder,coming out and committing again.Start at the max. and then possibly reduce is the way I see things should be done. cheers derek I watched the sentencing of the murderer example too Derek. I intend to watch the others and recommend the link to everyone because it covers a wide range of sentencing exercises not just murder. The automatic sentence for murder as I understand it is a whole life sentence. So the starting point is you go to jail for the rest of your life unless there are reasons to reduce that sentence. Judges set the minimum term to be served before a prisoner can apply to the parole board for release and then the parole board decides whether it is safe to release him/her after that minimum term. They remain on parole for the rest of their lives upon release. According to an article on fullfact.org published on their website in August 2016 there were 59 prisoners in the UK serving whole life terms who are never going to be released. Veronica Hi Veronica, I too am going to watch more on that link-cheers Must say I am left bewildered at what the 59 must have done as all we ever hear are reports of people being released who I believe the majority of normal citizens would sooner see remaining behind bars.The Bolger murderer being a prime example, to have been given 2 new identities and still being released is a disgrace. Maybe a different assessment before release would help. cheers derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.