Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Sarah Everard's Murderer
The current law in England and Wales states that the murder of a police (or prison) officer in the course of duty is a factor indicating a murder of ‘particularly high seriousness’, which must attract a minimum sentence of 30 years.
This is (thankfully) extremely rare, but if found guilty should the same apply to police / prison officers who murder civilians?
https:/
This is (thankfully) extremely rare, but if found guilty should the same apply to police / prison officers who murder civilians?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
andy hughes
To function properly, the law has to be utterly without emotion, in order to be as fair as it has to be.
The minute emotion comes in - and revenge is absolutely an emotion, understndable emotion, but emotion nevertheless, then the law stops operating as it should.
So why do we allow impact statements prior to sentencing ?
To function properly, the law has to be utterly without emotion, in order to be as fair as it has to be.
The minute emotion comes in - and revenge is absolutely an emotion, understndable emotion, but emotion nevertheless, then the law stops operating as it should.
So why do we allow impact statements prior to sentencing ?
If anyone would like to read the sentencing remarks they are here:-
https:/
https:/
SparklyKid @ 11:36 - indeed so.
Charles Dickens had it about right:
"...If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”
If only the eyes of the law were opened.
Charles Dickens had it about right:
"...If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass — a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience — by experience.”
If only the eyes of the law were opened.
naomi at 09:55 - // I can't add to what I've already said. //
namomi at 11:32 - // As I said earlier, I don't regard execution as a punishment. Simply as a permanent solution to ridding the world of a monster. //
You're right, you can't add to what you've said.
Nor are you willing to explain it either.
Just repeat it, for whatever reason.
namomi at 11:32 - // As I said earlier, I don't regard execution as a punishment. Simply as a permanent solution to ridding the world of a monster. //
You're right, you can't add to what you've said.
Nor are you willing to explain it either.
Just repeat it, for whatever reason.
Stickybottle - // So why do we allow impact statements prior to sentencing ? //
My view is that impact statements are a chance for the victim, and / or their family to have a chance to give their view on their feelings about what has happened - but I don't believe that substantially alter the sentencing, which is given under pre-determined guidelines.
My view is that impact statements are a chance for the victim, and / or their family to have a chance to give their view on their feelings about what has happened - but I don't believe that substantially alter the sentencing, which is given under pre-determined guidelines.
pixie - // 10:15, 10:19, totally agree. Andy, I don't understand the confusion of naomi (apparently) being ok to end a life, as long as it is painless. Surely, that is the civilised approach? //
If you can see taking someone's life in cold blood as 'civilsed' then you have a point, but I am unable to view it in that way.
// Wanting someone to have an agonising death, orlose limbs, really is just malicious revenge. //
Of course it is, but unless you have a way of executing someone without their knowledge, then there is going to be agony involved.
There are the utterly barbaric methods used elsewhere in the world such as lethal injection or firing squad, where the agony is mental rather than physical, but none the less prolonged, and barbaric for that.
// I also think, keeping other humans in cages for the rest of their days, can't realistically be seen as less barbaric? Look at the mental torture, sometimes to the point of suicide. //
As I have poiinted out, the incarcerration is not a punishment, it is simply the removal of a proven danger from a society of innocent people.
Yes the biproduct is mental suffering, but we don't have a perfect solution, and this accompaniement is necessary for the safety of society, which has to be the first consideration.
If you can see taking someone's life in cold blood as 'civilsed' then you have a point, but I am unable to view it in that way.
// Wanting someone to have an agonising death, orlose limbs, really is just malicious revenge. //
Of course it is, but unless you have a way of executing someone without their knowledge, then there is going to be agony involved.
There are the utterly barbaric methods used elsewhere in the world such as lethal injection or firing squad, where the agony is mental rather than physical, but none the less prolonged, and barbaric for that.
// I also think, keeping other humans in cages for the rest of their days, can't realistically be seen as less barbaric? Look at the mental torture, sometimes to the point of suicide. //
As I have poiinted out, the incarcerration is not a punishment, it is simply the removal of a proven danger from a society of innocent people.
Yes the biproduct is mental suffering, but we don't have a perfect solution, and this accompaniement is necessary for the safety of society, which has to be the first consideration.
naomi at 09:55 - // I can't add to what I've already said. Whether you understand it or not makes no difference to me. //
naomi at 12:42 - // Which bit of that^ don't you understand? //
I prefer to go with the first option of your evident condusion - if you don't care, as you say you don't, it saves me the tedious task of engaging wth you any further.
That means your question about which bit I 'don't understand' will remain unanswered - although I wonder why you asked it.
But wondering is not the same as caring.
naomi at 12:42 - // Which bit of that^ don't you understand? //
I prefer to go with the first option of your evident condusion - if you don't care, as you say you don't, it saves me the tedious task of engaging wth you any further.
That means your question about which bit I 'don't understand' will remain unanswered - although I wonder why you asked it.
But wondering is not the same as caring.
Ken - // Would it be too much to ask that now he has been sentenced to whole life in prison, the media will not trouble us with his name ever again - apart from to tell us when he's dead. //
Probably.
This has been an exceptional case in so many ways, and it will take society a length of time to assimilate the huge effect that it has had on the people involved.
While that goes on, the media will continue to advance theories and potential explanations, because that is what people want in order to process what they have heard.
Probably.
This has been an exceptional case in so many ways, and it will take society a length of time to assimilate the huge effect that it has had on the people involved.
While that goes on, the media will continue to advance theories and potential explanations, because that is what people want in order to process what they have heard.
Stickybottle - // The minute emotion comes in - and revenge is absolutely an emotion, understndable emotion, but emotion nevertheless, then the law stops operating as it should.
So why do we allow impact statements prior to sentencing ? //
If you have read the summing up by the judge, it will be as clear to you as it is to me that the sentence was decided on the evidence of the crimes committed, and that although the impact on the family was included, it clearly did not influence the sentence, which was based entirely on the law, without direct reference to the emotions involved.
So why do we allow impact statements prior to sentencing ? //
If you have read the summing up by the judge, it will be as clear to you as it is to me that the sentence was decided on the evidence of the crimes committed, and that although the impact on the family was included, it clearly did not influence the sentence, which was based entirely on the law, without direct reference to the emotions involved.
andy hughes
So you are in not so many words saying that impact statements are utterly pointless and have no bearing ?
So why allow their use in court when a statement read out by a spokesperson after the trial would suffice ?
Dress it up however you like but I would reason that a supposedly emotionless judge would take them into consideration when sentencing but especially so in this horror story
So you are in not so many words saying that impact statements are utterly pointless and have no bearing ?
So why allow their use in court when a statement read out by a spokesperson after the trial would suffice ?
Dress it up however you like but I would reason that a supposedly emotionless judge would take them into consideration when sentencing but especially so in this horror story
Information on VPS for those interested:-
https:/
para 39 onwards for use in sentencing.
https:/
para 39 onwards for use in sentencing.
Latest Posts
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
News9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.