Don't Eat Celery In The Sun, Folks!
Body & Soul32 mins ago
cop killer
Regarding David Beiber, The man jailed for life this week for the shooting of P.C. Ian Broadhurst, the judge ruled that in this case, life would mean LIFE.
I completely agree with this ruling but i think that should apply to all cases serious enough to warrant life imprisonment ie. child killers, peadophiles, and rapists not just somebody who kills 'one of the boys' .
Anyone agree ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tigga. 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.
If paedophiles and rapist will suffer the same sentence as a killer, then why shouldn't they kill their victim?
When you want child killers to be in prison for the rest of their life, are you including motorist who run over a child by accident and parents who assist the death of a severely disabled or injured child?
Its a kneejerk reaction that hasn't been thought through. Judges hear all the evidence and mitigating circumstances and they have the option to make life = life if the circumstances justify as the recent case proves. There's no need for a change.
Whilst it is hard to get inside the mind of the judge, he did say that the sentence reflected the fact, proved in court to the satisfaction of the jury, that Beiber calmly killed a man that was posing no threat, having been totally disabled by his previous shots. No doubt the recording evidence was particularly shocking. He did, of course mention that the man he shot was performing his job which was attempting to maintian a tranquil environment for law abiding people.
Life meant life for Myra Hindly and Ian Brady, and again there was tape recorded evidence of some of the crimes as well as an eyewitness account. They were convicted in the late 60s for preying on and murdering several children.
Don't forget, the automatic judgement for murder is a Life sentence. Where such an offender is released from prison, it is "under licence" for the rest of their life and have their movements curtailed, have to report to police at regular intervals, are usually assigned a Probation Officer to oversee their actions, and at the first sign of criminal activity they can be automatically returned to prison.
pinotage, i did state when a case is serious enough to get a life sentence. I understand what you are saying there but my main point was that life should mean life in any case where it is given- as this would be more of a deterrent and obviously when carrying out these crimes, they are not planning on getting caught.
The chance to be released on license before the end of your term of imprisonment if you behave and show you've changed for the better makes it possible to run prisons, gives prisoners motivation to obey the rules and make prison workable.
Judges know very well what term of imprisonment they are giving. They know life doesn't mean a life time inside, unless they say so. They can give minimum term.
Erwin James was sentenced to life in the 1980's; his fascinating articles about how prison educated and changed him are well worth reading in his book A Life Inside: A Prisoner's Notebook
A couple of points are missing off here and I think they are important ones.
Firstly, by not offering parole we are assuming that the correctional system is a waste of time and that rehabilitation is not likely. Crimes can be "one-offs", however wrong they are and we need to be tolerant with those that make mistakes. Finding you wife in bed with another and killing him, or defending your property. Not black and white the law. If we spend millions trying to get these people back on the straight and narrow then we need to allow them the chance to do so. I personally think that certain crimes are not "one-offs" and that are so severe that the the offender does not deserve a second chance so death should be the punishment. It is, however, not the society we live in and so we should try to help those who offend.
Secondly, if you kill a policeman retribution should be swift, severe and just. To send a message to the criminal world that all stops would be pulled out and that anyone connected will be sent down for LIFE is how it has to be in order to keep it from becoming a regular occurance. Anything other than that would perhaps make life very very tough for coppers on the street. Like them or loath them, it is they who allow you to work, play and live your life relatively free and they do it with their lives. Not many of us go to work knowing we are hated and not respected by those we serve, knowing that you could be killed, injured or played out in the press if you make a mistake. People spit at them and insult them and the police officers know they'll be round helping these same people out the very next day.
What Beiber got was just, he wasn't forced to kill PC Broadhurst and now he's going to pay for it every day in jail as the screws will see to that.
If like other notorious killers given full term 'life' sentences(Brady, Hindley, Sutcliffe etc) and life will mean life without any form of parole then why not re-introduve and carry out the death sentence on him and save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Because saving taxpayers' money is less important than ensuring that the murderer gets a proper punishment (life in prison is a harsh punishment whereas hanging is the easy way out( as demonstrated by Harold Shipman and Fred West))
if you think about sentencing as an equation where the punishment is fixed and where all crimes could be neatly categorised i suspose you would have an argument. In reality politicians make laws with a range of punishments and judges interpret them based on the evidence of a particular case.Although it sounds logical to always impose maximum sentences i think this would have a severely negative knock on effect to the whole criminal justice system as would reinstating the death sentence. Put simply, juries and therefore the CPS would find it much more difficult to secure convictions. This would result in more plea barganing to lesser offences and ultimately a less effective justice system. I do agree with you that the sentence should match the crime and not the status of the victim but the sentence should also be flexible enough to apply to a range of circumstances and allow for mitigating factors to be considered.
jim
Ok yes it all seems logical when you put it a different way and bring tax and reoffending and allsorts in to the equation but, i was reading the newspaper today and noticed that Beiber is due to go to the same prison as huntley and the man who killed sarah payne.
Fair enough, Beiber killed a policeman who was doing his job in serving the community and of course he desrves everything he gets, but one day he will wave bye bye to huntley and the other guy as they walk free. They killed young children !. Holly, Jessica and Sarah never even had the chance to grow up and choose their career - they were just happily enjoying their young lives.
Murder should warrant life and that should mean life. In the cases of self defence these are usually dropped if proved, and if somebody just loses their rag with a guy they find in their marital bed - they get done for manslaughter and mitigate diminished responsibility.
Maybe this is why the US have 1st and 2nd degree etc ?.
-- answer removed --
Actually the rules were changed last year so rather than the home secretary deciding on a tariff in these cases the judge will give a whole life tariff in certain specific cases this means that:
'Whole life' tariffs
Multiple murders - two or more - that show a "high degree of premeditation, involve abduction of the victim or are sexual or sadistic".
Murder of a child following abduction or that involves sexual or sadistic conduct. The principles also state that there will be a starting point of 30 years for other multiple murders.
Huntley's case came up before this law was introduced but he could have still got a life means life sentence.
jim
Can`t really agree with the views put forward that there are different types of murder.
The law is quite straightforward in that murder is the DELIBERATE taking of someone`s life, the sentence to which is life imprisonment. No doubt there are many occasions where death has been the end result of a course of action, but if the intent to kill was not there then it cannot be murder.
I fail to see the difference between the murder of a child, policeman, burglar, or any member of the public.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles72 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles74 mins ago
Music125 mins ago
Does Anyone Know Of A Lucasparish On Ab?
ChatterBank195 mins ago
