US-style murder 'grades' proposed
Discussion
Thoughts?
They seem to be saying that under this proposal Euthanasia will no longer attract a life sentence, which seems to me correct.
My worry is that criminals like those teenagers we were discussing recently, who attack and kill someone in a gang assault will no-longer receive a life sentence with a tariff, but the usual light sentence and out on parole half way through.
They seem to be saying that under this proposal Euthanasia will no longer attract a life sentence, which seems to me correct.
My worry is that criminals like those teenagers we were discussing recently, who attack and kill someone in a gang assault will no-longer receive a life sentence with a tariff, but the usual light sentence and out on parole half way through.
BBC said:
US-style murder 'grades' proposed
The Law Commission will suggest a US-style system
Many killings currently prosecuted as murder could be treated as manslaughter under proposals to be outlined by the government's legal advisers.
The Law Commission is set to suggest a US-style system of distinguishing between different types of homicide.
It could signal the end to a mandatory life sentence for murder, which critics say is too inflexible.
The report is part of the first major rethink of murder laws in England and Wales for over 50 years.
Currently all those convicted of murder must receive a life sentence but judges recommend a minimum term or "tariff".
'Different concepts'
But Dominic Grieve, the Conservative spokesman on legal affairs, said he had reservations about "tinkering with the principle that murder leads to a life sentence".
Murder and manslaughter were "two clearly different concepts" and juries did "very well" in distinguishing between them, he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"Murdering somebody is a very serious matter and the rule is that a person shouldn't necessarily spend the rest of their life in prison, but should be capable of recall to prison if their behaviour after release gives rise to concern," he said.
These proposals... will be seen by a number of criminals as a licence to murder as a long term of imprisonment seems less likely
And the Victims of Crime Trust, which represents families of murder victims, said the plans would "do nothing to reassure the British public".
"These proposals will result in shorter sentences and it will be seen by a number of criminals as a licence to murder, as a long term of imprisonment seems less likely," director Norman Brennan said.
Suggested reforms in the report - due to be published later - are expected to include:
Creating a US-style system with different degrees of murder charge
Child murder and highly premeditated crimes at one end of the scale and so-called mercy killings at the other
Suspects charged with murder only if they intended to kill
Other offences, such as fights and assaults resulting in unintentional death, could be prosecuted as manslaughter
Simplifying the partial defences to murder - provocation, diminished responsibility and self-defence.
These proposals would allow the prosecution to bring different charges and judges to impose sentences other than life imprisonment.
But the government insists that in the most serious cases of murder, the mandatory life sentence will remain.
The Voluntary Euthanasia Society said that moving mercy killings to a lower category of homicide would not address "the problem" that euthanasia was "treated as a criminal law issue and not as a medical issue".
"The criminal law is a blunt instrument for dealing with sensitive end-of-life decisions," a spokesman said.
And Julia Millington, of ProLife Alliance, said the proposal was "horrifying".
"What kind of society says that murder is acceptable if the victim is weak, sick or disabled?" she said.
'Discontent'
Options suggested by the commission will be put out to consultation before it presents a final set of recommendations to the Home Office next Autumn.
Last year, the commission condemned the law on murder as "a mess" and said a major rethink was needed because of the "breadth and depth of discontent" with the current situation.
The review, announced last October, is the first wholesale examination of murder laws since the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment which ran from 1949 to 1953.
This led to the Homicide Act, which was passed in 1957.
semms fair enough as premeditated murder is a bit diff to defending urself and u go too far etc. although maybe they should make it clear life should mean life if theyre going to be more leniant on some.
and no more spending more on prisoners food than school children!!
[unlessthatsadailymaillie]
and no more spending more on prisoners food than school children!!
[unlessthatsadailymaillie]
BBC said:
Suspects charged with murder only if they intended to kill
Depends how they decide this....
If a scrote goes out armed, intending to rob someone, who resists and is killed by the scrote is this murder? or since the scrote only inteneded to rob would he get a lighter sentence??
We are already way to lenient on burglars, muggers, rapists, etc surely building more prisons and reforming the system so criminals are punished instead of corrected is a better option...
The Telegraph has more information on this.
This is the key quote in the article
"Under English common law, murder is unlawful killing "with malice aforethought". This is taken by the courts to mean killing with an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. By taking grievous bodily harm out of the definition, it would be more difficult to obtain a murder conviction in cases where a victim died as a result of a severe beating that was never intended to be fatal."
The intention seems to be when 'disadvantaged' youths beat someone to death they should be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.
If that is the case this proposed change in the law should be opposed.
This is the key quote in the article
"Under English common law, murder is unlawful killing "with malice aforethought". This is taken by the courts to mean killing with an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. By taking grievous bodily harm out of the definition, it would be more difficult to obtain a murder conviction in cases where a victim died as a result of a severe beating that was never intended to be fatal."
The intention seems to be when 'disadvantaged' youths beat someone to death they should be convicted of manslaughter instead of murder.
If that is the case this proposed change in the law should be opposed.
Telegraph said:
A report on the law of homicide to be published today by the Government's law reform advisers is expected to recommend restricting the types of killing that will lead to an automatic sentence of life imprisonment.
There is speculation that this could be done by narrowing the definition of murder in cases where the defendant intended to kill his victim.
Today's consultation paper on the law of murder will be published by the Law Commission, which advises the Government on reform of the law. A report from the commission last year on partial defences to murder described the current murder law as a "mess", prompting the Home Office to announce a review.
Ministers want wide consultation before deciding whether to replace the Homicide Act 1957, which is widely regarded as outdated. Any change in the law would be regarded as something of a hot potato and will take some years to introduce.
The lengthy and technical consultation paper will be accompanied by a shorter paper designed for non-lawyers. The Law Commission has promised to let the Government have its provisional recommendations by next summer, with a final report due in the autumn.
Under English common law, murder is unlawful killing "with malice aforethought". This is taken by the courts to mean killing with an intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm. By taking grievous bodily harm out of the definition, it would be more difficult to obtain a murder conviction in cases where a victim died as a result of a severe beating that was never intended to be fatal.
Another way of restricting murder convictions would be to increase the scope of "partial defences" that reduce it to manslaughter, such as provocation and diminished responsibility.
It would also be possible to create degrees of murder, as in the United States, with only first-degree murder attracting a compulsory life sentence.
The most important difference between a murder and manslaughter is that a judge must sentence a person convicted of murder to life imprisonment. In manslaughter cases, that penalty is the maximum rather than mandatory.
Any reduction in the scope of murder would be welcomed by the judges, who resent what they see as the straitjacket of a life sentence. Although setting minimum periods in custody for murderers is now for the courts rather than the Home Secretary, judges are required to observe statutory guidelines.
Unless there are mitigating circumstances, the minimum term an adult offender must serve for murder before being considered for release is 15 years. This is doubled if a firearm is used or if, for example, the murder is aggravated on racial grounds or by sexual orientation. A second murder, or one committed for a political, religious or ideological cause, normally attracts a "whole life" order.
Reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter may make it easier to obtain convictions - although it is always open to a jury to return a verdict of manslaughter against someone charged with murder.
Whether juries are now finding defendants guilty of manslaughter rather than murder in order to spare them lengthy prison sentences can only be a matter of speculation while the current ban on jury research remains in force.
But under guidance issued last month by the Sentencing Guidelines Council, a person found guilty of manslaughter after suffering a "high degree" of provocation may avoid prison in exceptional cases, although the starting point for such offences is three years.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff