You mean cases which have been through the courts? No need for vigilantes then.
This is like that "we should use the death penalty but only on the really guilty murderers" argument which seems to do the rounds on DP threads.
Yes that is exactly what I mean "the really guilty murders" as you call them. Hence me saying earlier:
"If you could be absolutely certain that someone has commited murder (or violent crime repeatedly) out of enjoyment, insanity or sexual gratification - then I would like to see them permanently removed from society."
I should probably have said "then I would like to see them receive a lethal injection" instead of "permanently removed from society".
ETA - no I didn't mean "cases which have been through the courts? " because we don't have the death sentence.
like in other countries introduce degrees of murder ie 1st degree and 2nd degree and then you can give suitably longer sentences for those guilty of 1st
To be fair, a situation like that presented to a jury could see a strange outcome and the CPS would probably second guess it by pressing lesser charges.
Don't we have diminished responsibility, manslaughter etc, for such cases?
ETA - no I didn't mean "cases which have been through the courts? " because we don't have the death sentence.
How do you know they're really guilty if they haven't been through a court of law?
I think the number of cases where you can be "absolutely certain" of motivation are going to be such a small percentage of the overall number that it doesn't seem worth it to change the law just for the "obvious wrong 'uns". Such prisoners are less likely to be granted parole on a long sentence anyway.
No I don't, there are different circumstances to each case, and therefore there should be different sentences accordingly.
I would very probably do the same as the woman in the article linked below if one of my children where in the same situation as her son.
"For Inglis, who had no previous convictions and had worked with adults and children with learning disabilities, the final straw came around six months after her son's accident, when she was told that the only way for her son to be allowed to die legally would be to apply to the high court to withhold his food and water.
"I couldn't bear the thought of Tom dying of thirst or hunger," she told the jury, through streams of tears. "To me that would be so cruel, so cruel. To die slowly like that would be horrible."
After researching her son's condition on the internet, Inglis decided to end his misery in the most painless way she could: a drug overdose. Not knowing any drug dealers, she started hanging around places she knew drugs were sold – outside a local station, outside the jobcentre and needle exchanges – until she managed to buy the two grams her internet research told her would be enough to kill. She stole syringes from the hospital and then waited for a moment to strike."
Asked if the long sentence sent a warning to others considering a "mercy killing", Detective Chief Inspector Steve Collin, the officer in charge of the case, said: "There's no such thing as a mercy killing in law."
I can just about see it from the law's POV but I hope she gets early release.
Because of my free will scepticism and generally philosophy I think the most important dimension with regard to prison sentences is prevention and protection. Punishment and deterrent factors are very much secondary and for me highly questionable.
So, in summary, I'm quite relaxed about some murderers getting relatively light sentences if they're considered to be 'low risk'.
like in other countries introduce degrees of murder ie 1st degree and 2nd degree and then you can give suitably longer sentences for those guilty of 1st
Because we don't have that system already? Murder is a kind of homicide just like voluntary manslaughter, involuntary and negligent. We are discussing having variable sentences within that framework.
Don't we have diminished responsibility, manslaughter etc, for such cases?
But necessarily as a vigilante could have decided to kill out if vengeance, honour etc and then the crime would be murder - and possibly very premeditated murder too. And one that undermines the rule if law and do deserves a harsh sentence.
Dunno about the rest of it, but for a long time I have felt that a car should be treated the same as a lethal weapon. When someone kills an innocent bystander with their car (a moment's inattention, or driving when tired like that dick that caused the Great Heck railway crash), they get what is really a derisory sentence. Yet their victim(s) are as dead as if they were shot in the head. Why are we more lenient with drivers and why do we see them as less culpable?
Dunno about the rest of it, but for a long time I have felt that a car should be treated the same as a lethal weapon. When someone kills an innocent bystander with their car (a moment's inattention, or driving when tired like that dick that caused the Great Heck railway crash), they get what is really a derisory sentence. Yet their victim(s) are as dead as if they were shot in the head. Why are we more lenient with drivers and why do we see them as less culpable?
Historically people were charged with manslaughter, but there was a reluctance to convict for that, so specific offences of causing death by dangerous/reckless driving were introduced.
The maximum sentence is currently 14 years, but it is very rare for anyone to get close to that.
How do you know they're really guilty if they haven't been through a court of law?
I think the number of cases where you can be "absolutely certain" of motivation are going to be such a small percentage of the overall number that it doesn't seem worth it to change the law just for the "obvious wrong 'uns". Such prisoners are less likely to be granted parole on a long sentence anyway.
I would like to see the law changed.
If there is sufficient forensic/eye witness evidence to commit someone for persistent violent crime, sexual crime or murder for reasons of enjoyment or lack of control - then I would like to see them painlessly 'put down' without fanfare or hysteria.
We would do the same to a dog, and I don't understand why we allow people to continue to live when this type of crime has a more far-reaching effect on people and their families than a dog bite. I see no point in us paying to detain them when the money could be put to better use.
These crimes could be committed for reasons of nature or nurture. Either way, 'Putting them down' would do a lot to help break the cycle.
Again it depends. If it was a rapist paedo killer I'd say someone who killed them vigilante style should of course be prosecuted but no way on gods green earth should it be deemed a more serious crime than that of the child killer rapist.
People who take the law into their own hands should get a harsher sentence. No-one should be judge, jury & executioner
...25 years in prison before any thoughts of parole? The judge can still hand out longer if they feel it's fitting, with the max being a whole life sentence. I was shocked to discover that the average time a murderer now spends in a real prison is just 8 years and six months. Then they are put into an open prison (hotel) and are allowed out on day release and weekend release, before finally being granted parole at the 10 year point. To me, this is way to liberal.
In principle, yes. But the act of murder covers many scenarios, including so called "mercy killings". So we have to be careful before making 25 years mandatory.
Dunno about the rest of it, but for a long time I have felt that a car should be treated the same as a lethal weapon. When someone kills an innocent bystander with their car (a moment's inattention, or driving when tired like that dick that caused the Great Heck railway crash), they get what is really a derisory sentence. Yet their victim(s) are as dead as if they were shot in the head. Why are we more lenient with drivers and why do we see them as less culpable?
My take on it is this. We accept that driving motor vehicles carries an inherent risk, and millions drive every day. If all those people were for example waving weapons around, then sooner or later somebody is going to get unintentionally hurt through lack of concentration, but we would have to accept that because of the sheer number of weapons in use at any one time.
People who take the law into their own hands should get a harsher sentence. No-one should be judge, jury & executioner
I wouldn't hand down a harsher sentence to a distraught father for example who killed his child's murderer, I would deem that as quite understandable and therefore mitigating circumstances.
.....you can shoot me down for this but personally, if your willing to take someones life and you get convicted for it, you should be prepared to face the same penalty - death.
Problem is later being exonerated isn't much use to a dead person. At least with a prison sentences miscarriages of justice can be rectified.
In reply to the OP I largely agree. 25 years minimum seems about right to me.
I wouldn't hand down a harsher sentence to a distraught father for example who killed his child's murderer, I would deem that as quite understandable and therefore mitigating circumstances.
Even if he gunned down the person who ran over his child after a court case and sentence?
Then would you let his mum off you when she decided to take revenge on her son's murderer who someone let off lightly?
it's just murder man. Everyone does it, all God's creatures ...in one form or another... You look in the forests and you see species killing other species, our species killing all species including the forests, and we just call it industry, not murder
Because murder is the unlawful killing of another human, that'll be why. You can't "murder" something in the forest.
Comments
Yes that is exactly what I mean "the really guilty murders" as you call them. Hence me saying earlier:
"If you could be absolutely certain that someone has commited murder (or violent crime repeatedly) out of enjoyment, insanity or sexual gratification - then I would like to see them permanently removed from society."
I should probably have said "then I would like to see them receive a lethal injection" instead of "permanently removed from society".
ETA - no I didn't mean "cases which have been through the courts? " because we don't have the death sentence.
Sorry
Don't we have diminished responsibility, manslaughter etc, for such cases?
I think the number of cases where you can be "absolutely certain" of motivation are going to be such a small percentage of the overall number that it doesn't seem worth it to change the law just for the "obvious wrong 'uns". Such prisoners are less likely to be granted parole on a long sentence anyway.
I would very probably do the same as the woman in the article linked below if one of my children where in the same situation as her son.
"For Inglis, who had no previous convictions and had worked with adults and children with learning disabilities, the final straw came around six months after her son's accident, when she was told that the only way for her son to be allowed to die legally would be to apply to the high court to withhold his food and water.
"I couldn't bear the thought of Tom dying of thirst or hunger," she told the jury, through streams of tears. "To me that would be so cruel, so cruel. To die slowly like that would be horrible."
After researching her son's condition on the internet, Inglis decided to end his misery in the most painless way she could: a drug overdose. Not knowing any drug dealers, she started hanging around places she knew drugs were sold – outside a local station, outside the jobcentre and needle exchanges – until she managed to buy the two grams her internet research told her would be enough to kill. She stole syringes from the hospital and then waited for a moment to strike."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/20/mother-guilty-murder-disabled-son
So, in summary, I'm quite relaxed about some murderers getting relatively light sentences if they're considered to be 'low risk'.
Because we don't have that system already? Murder is a kind of homicide just like voluntary manslaughter, involuntary and negligent. We are discussing having variable sentences within that framework.
But necessarily as a vigilante could have decided to kill out if vengeance, honour etc and then the crime would be murder - and possibly very premeditated murder too. And one that undermines the rule if law and do deserves a harsh sentence.
Historically people were charged with manslaughter, but there was a reluctance to convict for that, so specific offences of causing death by dangerous/reckless driving were introduced.
The maximum sentence is currently 14 years, but it is very rare for anyone to get close to that.
I would like to see the law changed.
If there is sufficient forensic/eye witness evidence to commit someone for persistent violent crime, sexual crime or murder for reasons of enjoyment or lack of control - then I would like to see them painlessly 'put down' without fanfare or hysteria.
We would do the same to a dog, and I don't understand why we allow people to continue to live when this type of crime has a more far-reaching effect on people and their families than a dog bite. I see no point in us paying to detain them when the money could be put to better use.
These crimes could be committed for reasons of nature or nurture. Either way, 'Putting them down' would do a lot to help break the cycle.
In principle, yes. But the act of murder covers many scenarios, including so called "mercy killings". So we have to be careful before making 25 years mandatory.
My take on it is this. We accept that driving motor vehicles carries an inherent risk, and millions drive every day. If all those people were for example waving weapons around, then sooner or later somebody is going to get unintentionally hurt through lack of concentration, but we would have to accept that because of the sheer number of weapons in use at any one time.
I wouldn't hand down a harsher sentence to a distraught father for example who killed his child's murderer, I would deem that as quite understandable and therefore mitigating circumstances.
Problem is later being exonerated isn't much use to a dead person. At least with a prison sentences miscarriages of justice can be rectified.
In reply to the OP I largely agree. 25 years minimum seems about right to me.
I would like the charge of murder to be categorized into at least 5 different charges depending on degree.
A woman that has suffered at the hands of a brutal husband and murders him , is not the same as Fred West.
Even if he gunned down the person who ran over his child after a court case and sentence?
Then would you let his mum off you when she decided to take revenge on her son's murderer who someone let off lightly?
Unless it's Bear Grylls.
If a woman kills her husband in those circumstances it's usually manslaughter that they're convicted of.