Lol at life sentences

scorza said:
I think this would be correct as no two crimes are identical. I don't really like the top-down imposition of sentencing by government, I'd prefer to see competent judges given a lot more discretion about sentencing. IMO a thug who beats the daylights out of someone for looking at his girlfriend a bit funny should get a longer sentence than someone who snaps in a domestic argument and murders their partner. The former represents a much larger threat to the public.
Click to expand...

Which is why there is a range. What you are suggestion is that, gbh for example can be up to a life imprisonment crime.

I dont think gbh should be longer than murder though even if its a case of you just "snapped"

I think the current system is fine where you have a range of sentences for each crime set by government. Gives the judge leaway to sometimes impose a zero sentence or the maximum.

Whether you agree that these ranges are high enough for certain crimes is a different debate but you should vote a government in who believes in longer sentencing then if you disagree with it.
 
Glaucus said:
there is nothing sensible about the American system, sad state of affairs people want to degrade our legal system even further to a system we know doesn't work and know scientifically why it doesn't work. but lets all ignore facts and get back to baying for blood. like those countries most in here are so in horror about, yet want to implement similar stuff.
Click to expand...


You cannot logically defend the terms given where the premeditated murder of 1 life yields the same sentence as taking 2 lives ?

I am on about sentencing spans, you have brought whether the systems works or not into it.
 
Last edited:
Brizzles said:
You cannot logically defend the terms given where the premeditated murder of 1 life yields the same sentence as taking 2 lives ?
Click to expand...

Why? If you believe prison should be rehabilitatory in nature then it makes sense, equally, if you believe prison should be there to protect the public it makes sense. It is only if you think crimes should be assigned to some grand scale of villany and given a sentence in proportion to that scale that it doesn't make sense.
 
Brizzles said:
You cannot logically defend the terms given where the premeditated murder of 1 life yields the same sentence as taking 2 lives ?

I am on about sentencing spans, you have brought whether the systems works or not into it.
Click to expand...

It isn't, as you noticed the minimum sentence is increased.
 
holymonk said:
I dont get it either. Some footballer gets head from a 15 year old, gets 6 years. A man tries to chop someones head off and gets 8...
Click to expand...

He doesn't get 8 he gets life with the first chance of parole at 8years.
While the footballer gets a maximum of 6 and would be out in half that.
 
The real question then is, why should anyone trying to chop someone's head off ever be given the chance of parole. Throw away the key and let him rot.
 
Merlin5 said:
The real question then is, why should anyone trying to chop someone's head off ever be given the chance of parole. Throw away the key and let him rot.
Click to expand...

Because such things don't work, go look at america and how that sort of legal system fails.then go look at scandanaviancou tries legal system works and how much more sucesful it is. Just because they can stand in front of a parole board doesn't mean they'll be released. But to have a good system which saves lower crimes from a live of crime than go all out on punishment which doesn't work.
 
Life is 15 years so minimum 35 is generous prosecution?

Personally I think it's a load of ********. One life is equal to another and as a result life should mean life. However I also appreciate we have no space to lock them up in. So I'd bring back execution to save money.
 
Deport them to Indonesia with half a kilo of heroin in their luggage, that should take care of any future arrangements. :) Bang bang...

In all seriousness, my understanding is when the penalty that ensures they never bothered anyone again was abolished, the "Life" sentence was intended to be the next best thing. Over the years it has eroded to the point where 15 years was the minimum, now it's less than 10. Whichever way you look at it, that does not constitute a "life" sentence.

Perhaps it's time the term life sentence was abolished and a specific term in years imposed - whether than be 10, 15 or 25 years (or longer) depending which soft hearted judge happens to be hearing the case.
 
Mr Jack said:
Why? If you believe prison should be rehabilitatory in nature then it makes sense, equally, if you believe prison should be there to protect the public it makes sense. It is only if you think crimes should be assigned to some grand scale of villany and given a sentence in proportion to that scale that it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Well, i don't buy into the rehabilitation mindset i'm afraid, prison should be a punishment. And punishment should scale with the crime.

If you are tried and found guilty with sound mind then no amount of rehab will change that.
 
Brizzles said:
Well, i don't buy into the rehabilitation mindset i'm afraid, prison should be a punishment. And punishment should scale with the crime.

If you are tried and found guilty with sound mind then no amount of rehab will change that.
Click to expand...

+1

And the deterrent effect. You can argue whether on not capital punishment is a deterrent and the US doesn't really compare to the UK in that respect. The mindset is different and not everyone sentenced to death in America ends up being executed, and then only after years of appeals and stays. In the UK there was a limited appeal process with sentence carried out within about three weeks of trial other than very exceptional circumstances. The purpose was to send a message to the criminal fraternity and if you read the various hangmen's memoirs most of their "customers" were the culprits of casual or domestic murder.

What's more likely to stop someone committing a murder - the knowledge if caught, 1. You'll hang. 2. A Life sentence which means you will be unlikely to see the outside world until beyond pension age, 3. A "tariff" of 8 years in prison.

It might be a bit of a DM view but I'm firmly of the opinion the law and its penalties should exist to protect the non-offending population and remove from society/punish for a significant time those who do. Rehabilitation is secondary.
 
StriderX said:
Its Okay, because they'll be rehabilitated into perfectly functional people according to everyone who says they're a liberal, but actually lives in luxurious conservative based ideals.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know what your definitions of liberal and conservative are in this paragraph.
 
I honestly don't think that somebody of the mindset to commit murder would be bothered whether it was 8 years, all their life or death penalty.

In fact the person facing full life or death penalty is far more likely to kill again to avoid capture.
 
Deterrent means punishing one person because you think it might affect the behaviour of another person. I do not see how that can be morally justified. Deterrent is a useful side effect not a legitimate reason for setting tariffs.
 
Greebo said:
In fact the person facing full life or death penalty is far more likely to kill again to avoid capture.
Click to expand...

The majority of murders are single incident , be that single or multiple victims, in as much as they are planned targets /intent and the killer stops after.

'avoiding capture ' would refer to a spree killer, who would continue to kill, which is extremely rare in the UK
 
Brizzles said:
The majority of murders are single incident , be that single or multiple victims, in as much as they are planned targets /intent and the killer stops after.

'avoiding capture ' would refer to a spree killer, who would continue to kill, which is extremely rare in the UK
Click to expand...

I was more implying that say you had just killed somebody in the heat of the moment and you knew if you were caught you were going to hang, wouldn't that then mean you were more likely to kill the witness too?
 
As I noted, if you read the history of 20th century murder during the time the death penalty was active, very few murders were the result of cold blooded criminal pre-meditation. Most were crimes of passion or totally pointless, like the coal miner who killed his wife after an argument over being given jam sandwiches to take to work! Obviously there were the psychopaths - Haigh, Christie etc. but as the hangmen themselves recalled, the boom of the great trapdoors going down a few times a year sent a chilling message through the actual criminal fraternity.

While I doubt a referendum on the death penalty would result in a majority in favour these days, I suspect one conducted on what a life sentence should mean is certainly more than eight years...
 
A referendum?

If we never have another direct referendum on a real issue ever again then perhaps some good will have come out of this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom