Murder Sentancing

Former Member

Thought it'd be worth discussing this. I find some of the lashback interesting.


Story

Former Member

Not necessarily a bad thing. Not all murders are committed in the same circumstances and the sentence given should reflect this. Perhaps 7-8 years served is however too low a sentence for murder, regardless of reductions for good conduct, admission of guilt, etc- that's clearly a matter of personal opinion.

As for the reduction in the sentence if the convicted person admits guilt... well I do agree with that. But I just wonder what happens to those people who are innocent to start with and refuse to admit to something they have not done.

Former Member

Murder regardless of plea actually carries a minimum sentance of life. The 'early release' and 'reduced sentance' are to do with when they can be released on licence. Which I must remind people means they are still serving their life sentance for murder even if they're on the outside. Remember that if they get caught stealing so much as a tictac they're back inside to finish their life sentance.


Just thought I'd clarify such things for the debate.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
jesus christ... can you believe the words of the left wing idiot. he has never been hit by a criminal, never seen an asylum seeker... lives in planet cooko land! the quciker he is sacked the better! I am very outraged!!!

i nearly fucking choked on my sausage butty then!
how did the friggin assylum seeker get in here again?

Former Member

Originally posted by morrocan roll
how did the friggin assylum seeker get in here again?

In the back of a lorry like the rest of 'em, I presume.

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
jesus christ... can you believe the words of the left wing idiot. he has never been hit by a criminal, never seen an asylum seeker... lives in planet cooko land! the quciker he is sacked the better! I am very outraged!!!

*dies laughing*

Have you ever considered a career in stand-up comedy? I'd pay a fortune to see your show:D

Former Member

Originally posted by lukesh
jesus christ... can you believe the words of the left wing idiot. he has never been hit by a criminal, never seen an asylum seeker... lives in planet cooko land! the quciker he is sacked the better! I am very outraged!!!

theres obviously something about being a leftwing idiot that scares the crims shitless.
leftwing people never suffer vandalism ...robbery ...burglary ...rape or murder ...why do you think that is luke?

Former Member

I knew he'd reply with something like that, why does it surprise you boys?

Former Member

Its not like the government are even left wing anymore. In fact the whole idea of left and right has fallen apart since The Third Way.

Former Member

just because someone has admitted their guilt, doesnt mean theyre remorseful for it...

and what of the innocent who get convicted wrongly

Former Member

The jury should have a say in the sentencing of criminals.

Judges are not ordinary people, they’re detached from ordinary life and don’t live in the real world.

For cold and calculated premeditated murder committed by somebody in full possession of their faculties they should definitely receive mandatory life imprisonment regardless.

On other cases there should be more leniency; crimes of passion for instance. And people who are suffering from mental problems should be sent to a mental institution instead of prison.

I’m not sure whether I support the death penalty for criminals. Basic conditions in prison is probably a greater deterrent. However, I would support a referendum on the issue.

Former Member

I wouldn't support a referendum on the death penalty, the people shouldnt decide issues like that.

Judges decide sentances because they have the training and specialist knowledge to do so.

There is perhaps room for the jury to put forward a view which the judge could consider, but for them to decide the sentance, no, thats a bad idea.

Former Member

Originally posted by Disillusioned
Judges are not ordinary people, they’re detached from ordinary life and don’t live in the real world.

Which is exactly why they should deal out punishments. They have an appropriatly detached sense of just punishment. Ordinary people such as you and me don't have the same detachment.

If I had a car accident and killed a friend, purely because of bad luck, not because I'd been drinking or driving too fast. It'd be reasonable for her family to want a harsh judgement for me. The judge however, may see that it was nothing but an accident and I've lost a friend, and may let me off.

Former Member

Originally posted by Disillusioned
The jury should have a say in the sentencing of criminals.

Judges are not ordinary people, they’re detached from ordinary life and don’t live in the real world.

Did you now, as a random tangent, that studies have shown that judges tend to give more harsh sentences than "ordinary members of the public"?

No, I didn't think you did.

For cold and calculated premeditated murder committed by somebody in full possession of their faculties they should definitely receive mandatory life imprisonment regardless.

:banghead:

I'm going to commit cold and calculated premeditated murder on the next person who says that.

The sentence for murder is mandatory life sentence. It was how the Death Penalty was abolished in 1965.

On other cases there should be more leniency; crimes of passion for instance. And people who are suffering from mental problems should be sent to a mental institution instead of prison.

:thumb:

If you knew your arse from your elbow you'd know that this is already the case.

I’m not sure whether I support the death penalty for criminals. Basic conditions in prison is probably a greater deterrent. However, I would support a referendum on the issue.

Anyone who could even entertain the possibility of asking people about the death penalty is a fool, in my humblest opinion. This is exactly the sort of thing the people shouldn't decide, because, in the nicest possible way, they know fuck all about the law or about sentencing. people who know fuck all have no moral right to make a decision on that subject.

Former Member

For those who think that the death penalty is a good thing, have a read of this

The caes of Bentley and Ellis show why the death penalty should never be rbought back.

Former Member

I'd say your arguement there is an entirely good reason for getting rid of voting altogether.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
I'd say your arguement there is an entirely good reason for getting rid of voting altogether.

Oddly enough, so do I.

Democracy is the tyranny of the stupid.

Former Member

Indeed, the public are scum and dont deserve a vote.

The problem being who to replace them with.

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
Indeed, the public are scum and dont deserve a vote.

The problem being who to replace them with.

I know.

Democracy is bar far and away the worst possible method of govenment and political delivery.

Except all the other ways.

Personally I suggest replacing them with a panel of me and, um, me, but I don't know how many of the masses would agree with this. Not many, again proviong the stupidity argument, me thinks :yes:

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
The problem being who to replace them with.

Me, duh!

Former Member

There should be some sort of panel of elders. People who are rational and above the rest of the scum.

Though the selection of this panel and how to then make decisions should be in my hands.

Former Member

Ok, so you, me, kermit and roo then?

Former Member

Seems reasonable, but we should have an odd number so votes are decidable

Former Member

Lukesh or GWST you decide.

Former Member

GWST would insist on herself.

And she's the boss :nervous:

Former Member

I dont want that fuckwit Lukesh anywhere near the panel of elders!

(no offence mate)

Former Member

Whatever the circumstances, a sentence less than 15 years for murder is a slap in the face to victim's family.

Former Member

Originally posted by dantheman
Whatever the circumstances, a sentence less than 15 years for murder is a slap in the face to victim's family.

Even if the "victim" was an aggressive, violent bully?

Former Member

Originally posted by bongbudda
I dont want that fuckwit Lukesh anywhere near the panel of elders!

(no offence mate)

I'll take his place

Former Member

Originally posted by dantheman
Whatever the circumstances, a sentence less than 15 years for murder is a slap in the face to victim's family.

Once again, for those who have trouble reading. The sentance in mandatory LIFE, the question is when parole is heard and given. Remembering of course that any minor violation can result in being placed back in custody.

Former Member

Originally posted by Fiend_85
Once again, for those who have trouble reading. The sentance in mandatory LIFE, the question is when parole is heard and given. Remembering of course that any minor violation can result in being placed back in custody.

so what any minor violation can result in them being placed back into custody. Before you make judgements I don't subscribe to the "lock 'em up and throw away the key" attitude.
Just let me ask you, if someone killed a member of your family and admitted it straight away and managed to get out after just 10 years, you would think that punishment enough for the taking a life?