Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins 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.
Stickybottle - // andy hughes
So you are in not so many words saying that impact statements are utterly pointless and have no bearing ? //
If you re-read my post, you will notice the absence of words like 'utterly' and 'pointless' - mainly because no, that is absolutely not what I am saying.
// So why allow their use in court when a statement read out by a spokesperson after the trial would suffice ? //
Again, please re-read my post, I have pointed out my view on impact statements there, perfectly clearly.
// 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 //
I am not 'dressing anything up' and I have pointed out several times, again please read back what I have said, that in my view the law should be without emotion.
I have never suggested that the judge would, or indeed should be without emption.
So you are in not so many words saying that impact statements are utterly pointless and have no bearing ? //
If you re-read my post, you will notice the absence of words like 'utterly' and 'pointless' - mainly because no, that is absolutely not what I am saying.
// So why allow their use in court when a statement read out by a spokesperson after the trial would suffice ? //
Again, please re-read my post, I have pointed out my view on impact statements there, perfectly clearly.
// 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 //
I am not 'dressing anything up' and I have pointed out several times, again please read back what I have said, that in my view the law should be without emotion.
I have never suggested that the judge would, or indeed should be without emption.
sp1814
Question Author Does killing a killer make the world a better place? Does ridding the world of a monster improve the world for the rest of us?
Undeniably in my book
I recall in a subsequent press conference the parents of one of Huntleys victims wanting the death penalty for him
I wonder what untold suffering and anguish they have suffered over the years ?
Question Author Does killing a killer make the world a better place? Does ridding the world of a monster improve the world for the rest of us?
Undeniably in my book
I recall in a subsequent press conference the parents of one of Huntleys victims wanting the death penalty for him
I wonder what untold suffering and anguish they have suffered over the years ?
How do we deal with cases where it transpires that convictions have been made with shaky evidence? Where sentences have been commuted on appeal?
Do we replicate the U.S. system appeals system in the knowledge that it might lead to years of delay to the eventual death, or do we risk it with a speedy killing?
Do we replicate the U.S. system appeals system in the knowledge that it might lead to years of delay to the eventual death, or do we risk it with a speedy killing?
sp - // Does killing a killer make the world a better place? //
In my view, no, but there are those who disagree, tha majority who have contributed to this thread do as an example.
// Does ridding the world of a monster improve the world for the rest of us? //
Clearly yes, but to do that, it only necessary to remove the monster from society, it is not actually essential to kill them to do so.
// I don’t think it does - because it truncates punishment //
As I have already said, I vew incarceration as a safety issue rather than as a punishment.
In my view, no, but there are those who disagree, tha majority who have contributed to this thread do as an example.
// Does ridding the world of a monster improve the world for the rest of us? //
Clearly yes, but to do that, it only necessary to remove the monster from society, it is not actually essential to kill them to do so.
// I don’t think it does - because it truncates punishment //
As I have already said, I vew incarceration as a safety issue rather than as a punishment.
Stickybottle - // I recall in a subsequent press conference the parents of one of Huntleys victims wanting the death penalty for him
I wonder what untold suffering and anguish they have suffered over the years ? //
The families of murder victims occupy a unique and particuarly horrible place in our society, and I have no doubt at all that were one of my loved ones murdered, I would want the perpetrator to die, slowly and painfully.
But laws have to made for the majority of society, and not framed around the competely understandable emotions of a very few people in relative terms.
The law has to be formed and operated without emotion, because to form and operate it any other way would render it entirely unworkable.
I wonder what untold suffering and anguish they have suffered over the years ? //
The families of murder victims occupy a unique and particuarly horrible place in our society, and I have no doubt at all that were one of my loved ones murdered, I would want the perpetrator to die, slowly and painfully.
But laws have to made for the majority of society, and not framed around the competely understandable emotions of a very few people in relative terms.
The law has to be formed and operated without emotion, because to form and operate it any other way would render it entirely unworkable.
naomi24
//How can ridding the world of a monster not improve it?//
When the monster isn’t a monster. ie. when we convict the wrong person - rare, but not unheard-of.
Advocates of the death penalty will have to accept that on rare occasions the state will execute innocent people.
Many won’t sign up to that.
//How can ridding the world of a monster not improve it?//
When the monster isn’t a monster. ie. when we convict the wrong person - rare, but not unheard-of.
Advocates of the death penalty will have to accept that on rare occasions the state will execute innocent people.
Many won’t sign up to that.
//So why do we allow impact statements prior to sentencing ?//
Because all victims of crime have a right to make one and, with a very few exceptions, have its contents to be made available to a sentencing court. See section 7 of "The Victims' Code" here:
https:/
Judges and Magistrates take all manner of factors on board when sentencing. That's why, whenever I comment on a sentencing matter, I make it clear that we (on AB) know only a small fraction of what the court is told. Overarching sentencing guidelines make it clear that the impact on a victim of a particular crime should be considered and the sentence adjusted if appropriate. An example: two cases of burglary. The circumstances of both are similar - a burglar breaks in to a home whilst the single occupant is asleep. But in the first the burglar steals £100 in cash from the lounge whilst the twenty five year old well paid occupant sleeps upstairs. In the second the burglar takes £100 in cash left in the tea caddy whilst the eighty year old widow, dependant solely on her State pension sleeps upstairs. Neither should be burgled but the impact on the second is far greater than that on the first. This is twofold: the sum stolen will probably have a far greater impact on the widow; but also the psychological impact on the 80 year old is likely to be far greater and her sense of security far more severely compromised such that she may not ever be able to get over the ordeal. The 25 year old may simply shrug it off. That's what the court needs to know.
The State operates a deal where victims forgo the right to extract justice on those who commit crimes against them on the understanding that the State does so on their behalf. For that reason victims are an inherent part of the justice process and to ignore the impact of crime on them is to ignore one of the fundamental purposes of the criminal justice system.
Because all victims of crime have a right to make one and, with a very few exceptions, have its contents to be made available to a sentencing court. See section 7 of "The Victims' Code" here:
https:/
Judges and Magistrates take all manner of factors on board when sentencing. That's why, whenever I comment on a sentencing matter, I make it clear that we (on AB) know only a small fraction of what the court is told. Overarching sentencing guidelines make it clear that the impact on a victim of a particular crime should be considered and the sentence adjusted if appropriate. An example: two cases of burglary. The circumstances of both are similar - a burglar breaks in to a home whilst the single occupant is asleep. But in the first the burglar steals £100 in cash from the lounge whilst the twenty five year old well paid occupant sleeps upstairs. In the second the burglar takes £100 in cash left in the tea caddy whilst the eighty year old widow, dependant solely on her State pension sleeps upstairs. Neither should be burgled but the impact on the second is far greater than that on the first. This is twofold: the sum stolen will probably have a far greater impact on the widow; but also the psychological impact on the 80 year old is likely to be far greater and her sense of security far more severely compromised such that she may not ever be able to get over the ordeal. The 25 year old may simply shrug it off. That's what the court needs to know.
The State operates a deal where victims forgo the right to extract justice on those who commit crimes against them on the understanding that the State does so on their behalf. For that reason victims are an inherent part of the justice process and to ignore the impact of crime on them is to ignore one of the fundamental purposes of the criminal justice system.
I don't think "victim impact statements" do have any place. Not only is that going to be emotional, but also depends on literacy.
'All' of our laws already depend entirely on emotion, anyway. We lock a murderer up, because of how much it upsets people- not because we rationally have enough humans already. Laws are always based on human emotion.
'All' of our laws already depend entirely on emotion, anyway. We lock a murderer up, because of how much it upsets people- not because we rationally have enough humans already. Laws are always based on human emotion.
the sentencing remarks in this case are here:-
https:/
there is interest in them relating to SP's original question. that is, the judge pointed out (as have others on this forum) that in the UK we are policed by consent, and trust in the police to act in the public interest forms part of that. to undermine that trust is to behave in a most serious way. Part of the reasoning for the whole life tariff took that into account.
https:/
there is interest in them relating to SP's original question. that is, the judge pointed out (as have others on this forum) that in the UK we are policed by consent, and trust in the police to act in the public interest forms part of that. to undermine that trust is to behave in a most serious way. Part of the reasoning for the whole life tariff took that into account.
Dazzy, I don't see why "who" a victim is, should make a difference? Or who a murderer is?
I personally, wouldn't make it automatic. But there are some names (I'm no expert here), that seem notorious.... Manson, Branson, the Wests, Shipman, Hindley, Brady...etc etc... let's be honest- if we made a mistake with any of those- we destroyed their lives, over a painfully long time.
I personally, wouldn't make it automatic. But there are some names (I'm no expert here), that seem notorious.... Manson, Branson, the Wests, Shipman, Hindley, Brady...etc etc... let's be honest- if we made a mistake with any of those- we destroyed their lives, over a painfully long time.
pixie - // 'All' of our laws already depend entirely on emotion, anyway. We lock a murderer up, because of how much it upsets people- not because we rationally have enough humans already. Laws are always based on human emotion. //
You will not be surpirsed to read that I take entirely the opposite view.
We lock a murderer up to protect society from him or her - if we acted on the basis of emotional reaction, we would execute them thirty seconds after they were convicted.
In my view, laws are based on what is best for the society they serve, and emotion is, and should be, left out of their formation and delivery.
You will not be surpirsed to read that I take entirely the opposite view.
We lock a murderer up to protect society from him or her - if we acted on the basis of emotional reaction, we would execute them thirty seconds after they were convicted.
In my view, laws are based on what is best for the society they serve, and emotion is, and should be, left out of their formation and delivery.
Latest Posts
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works13 mins ago
Lord Peter Mandelson, Uk Ambassador
News19 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
News23 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.