The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3556304.stm[/URL]
Convicted rapist wins £7 million whilst on day release from his life sentence of...7 years? Doesn't sound much like a life sentence to me, but I'm sketchy on the law of this. Lucky bloke though - 7 year holiday, then gets a massive bundle of cash right near the end!
What are the chances, meh, meeeeeeh!?!
Convicted rapist wins £7 million whilst on day release from his life sentence of...7 years? Doesn't sound much like a life sentence to me, but I'm sketchy on the law of this. Lucky bloke though - 7 year holiday, then gets a massive bundle of cash right near the end!
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> No it's not called Communism.
OK well i spose you could call it Russain.
> No it's not called Communism.
OK well i spose you could call it Russain.
Light wrote:
> ~Darling~ wrote:
>
>
> Not quite. If this was to happen the battered wife, or the
> heartbroken man will plead provocation and then it is up to the
> judge
> to reduce the charge to manslaughter which doesn't carry a
> compulsory
> life sentence.
>
> 'fraid not. Common sense would dictate that you're right, but what
> actually happens is that they tend to find themselves still charged
> with murder, particularly the battered wife. You'll have to forgive
> my vagueness on this as it's been 5 years since i was in court, but
> basically the defence of provocation relies on someone reacting to a
> particularly severe provocation. Often in the cases of battered
> wives, the murder occurred as a result of something that is, on the
> face of it, minor and petty. And as for the heartbroken husband,
> again the defence relies on "What would the average man
> do?". Many judges don't think an average man would kill someone,
> even if faced with the circumstances I described. As such, they can
> still face murder charges rather than having it reduced to
> manslaughter.
>
> Taking away the need for a mandatory life sentence for murder would
> sort these problems out without the need to rely on an anachronistic
> judge's sensibilities.
Nah, you can plead for temporary insanity at that moment, hence why you caused death.
It happens all the time, a mans wife is raped, so he picks up a knife/gun and kills the rapist (if he happens to know him). He pleads guilty, but also pleads temporary insanity at the time, which can lessen the severity of a sentence.
All you need is proof of what caused it, and like, no history of insanity whatsoever.
> ~Darling~ wrote:
>
>
> Not quite. If this was to happen the battered wife, or the
> heartbroken man will plead provocation and then it is up to the
> judge
> to reduce the charge to manslaughter which doesn't carry a
> compulsory
> life sentence.
>
> 'fraid not. Common sense would dictate that you're right, but what
> actually happens is that they tend to find themselves still charged
> with murder, particularly the battered wife. You'll have to forgive
> my vagueness on this as it's been 5 years since i was in court, but
> basically the defence of provocation relies on someone reacting to a
> particularly severe provocation. Often in the cases of battered
> wives, the murder occurred as a result of something that is, on the
> face of it, minor and petty. And as for the heartbroken husband,
> again the defence relies on "What would the average man
> do?". Many judges don't think an average man would kill someone,
> even if faced with the circumstances I described. As such, they can
> still face murder charges rather than having it reduced to
> manslaughter.
>
> Taking away the need for a mandatory life sentence for murder would
> sort these problems out without the need to rely on an anachronistic
> judge's sensibilities.
Nah, you can plead for temporary insanity at that moment, hence why you caused death.
It happens all the time, a mans wife is raped, so he picks up a knife/gun and kills the rapist (if he happens to know him). He pleads guilty, but also pleads temporary insanity at the time, which can lessen the severity of a sentence.
All you need is proof of what caused it, and like, no history of insanity whatsoever.
No it's not called Communism.
Goatboy wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> No one needs to break the
> law because they share what they have.
>
> That's called Communism.
And it doesnt work. People lose all motivation.
> Belldandy wrote:
> No one needs to break the
> law because they share what they have.
>
> That's called Communism.
And it doesnt work. People lose all motivation.
Belldandy wrote:
No one needs to break the
> law because they share what they have.
That's called Communism.
No one needs to break the
> law because they share what they have.
That's called Communism.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> The 'need' to commit crime is not always the primary reason for
> breaking the law. As we've discussed at length, quite a few people
> smoke a certain plant. This is against the law. Do we 'need' to
> break this law? No.
So you look at why people do that activity and find a way to replace that activity with legal ones.
Put it this way, Light's been on about piracy (ironically at the one person who did buy it instead of those who say they didn't) in another forum and him and Goatboy both repeat the line that software piracy is linked to terrorism/crime etc. Is someone downloading for free helping terrorist or criminals? No. But in the wider scheme piracy does link to those activities. Does buying Cannabis always mean you are supporting terrorism or crime? Not always, but in the wider scheme yes it is linked. How have the RIAA and ELSPA gone after pirates? By going after the sources and not really determining who was just downloading piles or distributing piles - no distinguishing. Slowly they've made downloading more unacceptable and shut down sources whilst providing legal means to download. Repeat for Cannabis, shut down the sources as best can be done, make it more unacceptable by promoting the worst aspects, and replace with a legal alternative where necessary.
> What about murdering psycho/sociopaths? They cannot perceive right
> and wrong, to an extent anyway - they will kill people regardless of
> whether they 'need' to or not.
Obviously talking a long long way in the future here, but there is no reason that medical science cannot help them given the technology.
> And it would be incredibly difficult to create a society where no man
> wants for anything. greed is a powerful thing.
If it can be dreamnt of then it is possible, who knows how, but it is possible.
> The 'need' to commit crime is not always the primary reason for
> breaking the law. As we've discussed at length, quite a few people
> smoke a certain plant. This is against the law. Do we 'need' to
> break this law? No.
So you look at why people do that activity and find a way to replace that activity with legal ones.
Put it this way, Light's been on about piracy (ironically at the one person who did buy it instead of those who say they didn't) in another forum and him and Goatboy both repeat the line that software piracy is linked to terrorism/crime etc. Is someone downloading for free helping terrorist or criminals? No. But in the wider scheme piracy does link to those activities. Does buying Cannabis always mean you are supporting terrorism or crime? Not always, but in the wider scheme yes it is linked. How have the RIAA and ELSPA gone after pirates? By going after the sources and not really determining who was just downloading piles or distributing piles - no distinguishing. Slowly they've made downloading more unacceptable and shut down sources whilst providing legal means to download. Repeat for Cannabis, shut down the sources as best can be done, make it more unacceptable by promoting the worst aspects, and replace with a legal alternative where necessary.
> What about murdering psycho/sociopaths? They cannot perceive right
> and wrong, to an extent anyway - they will kill people regardless of
> whether they 'need' to or not.
Obviously talking a long long way in the future here, but there is no reason that medical science cannot help them given the technology.
> And it would be incredibly difficult to create a society where no man
> wants for anything. greed is a powerful thing.
If it can be dreamnt of then it is possible, who knows how, but it is possible.
The 'need' to commit crime is not always the primary reason for breaking the law. As we've discussed at length, quite a few people smoke a certain plant. This is against the law. Do we 'need' to break this law? No.
What about murdering psycho/sociopaths? They cannot perceive right and wrong, to an extent anyway - they will kill people regardless of whether they 'need' to or not.
And it would be incredibly difficult to create a society where no man wants for anything. greed is a powerful thing.
What about murdering psycho/sociopaths? They cannot perceive right and wrong, to an extent anyway - they will kill people regardless of whether they 'need' to or not.
And it would be incredibly difficult to create a society where no man wants for anything. greed is a powerful thing.
SHEEPY wrote:
> That'll never happen though. Prisons will always exist.
Not forever, create a society where people do not need to commit crime and one day we won't need prisons. In addition you need to make sure that the law is fair and harsh on those who do break it, in theory that prevents even minor offences. Why is the internet so lawless? Because everyone knows that unless they are doing something seriously wrong then they will get away with it. Same applies to real life, people can commit small offences which makes other's lives hell, safe in the knowledge that even if they do get arrested they'll be cautioned at best. With minors its even worse, they know they can go all the way up to murder nearly and get away with a few years youth offenders at worst.
There are some small societies where they do not have prisons - admittedly small ones in developing nations, but I was reading about one tribe of people in Sierra Leone and they claim that no one in living memory has broken their laws. They all exist as a community, despite being dirt poor by our standards. No one needs to break the law because they share what they have. Of course in private this may no be the case, but in the same way there will be many crimes comitted here in the UK which will not be recorded. The guy interviewed also cheerfully explained how the punishment for breaking their laws was being stoned to death, which you have to think acts as a detterant. Not that we should consider that, obviously.
Changing society will not eradicate crime but it would reduce it to a level that is negligible, in the same way the ultimate way to combat terrorism is to change the world so it becomes negligible.
> That'll never happen though. Prisons will always exist.
Not forever, create a society where people do not need to commit crime and one day we won't need prisons. In addition you need to make sure that the law is fair and harsh on those who do break it, in theory that prevents even minor offences. Why is the internet so lawless? Because everyone knows that unless they are doing something seriously wrong then they will get away with it. Same applies to real life, people can commit small offences which makes other's lives hell, safe in the knowledge that even if they do get arrested they'll be cautioned at best. With minors its even worse, they know they can go all the way up to murder nearly and get away with a few years youth offenders at worst.
There are some small societies where they do not have prisons - admittedly small ones in developing nations, but I was reading about one tribe of people in Sierra Leone and they claim that no one in living memory has broken their laws. They all exist as a community, despite being dirt poor by our standards. No one needs to break the law because they share what they have. Of course in private this may no be the case, but in the same way there will be many crimes comitted here in the UK which will not be recorded. The guy interviewed also cheerfully explained how the punishment for breaking their laws was being stoned to death, which you have to think acts as a detterant. Not that we should consider that, obviously.
Changing society will not eradicate crime but it would reduce it to a level that is negligible, in the same way the ultimate way to combat terrorism is to change the world so it becomes negligible.
~Darling~ wrote:
> Light wrote:
> ~Darling~ wrote:
>
> Which is what I said!
Did you?! Oh...b*gger. My apologies! I thought you were saying that, if a defendant enters a plea to a lesser charge, the court is obliged to accept it.
My bad.
> Light wrote:
> ~Darling~ wrote:
>
> Which is what I said!
Did you?! Oh...b*gger. My apologies! I thought you were saying that, if a defendant enters a plea to a lesser charge, the court is obliged to accept it.
My bad.
~Darling~ wrote:
> No. It's at the judges discression. If someone rings you up calling
> you names and such, and you go to their house, and you are still mad
> then kill him then you can still use provocation even if it took you
> an hour to get there. However, if your neighbour had been playing
> loud music and stopped at 10pm, you cannot go round his house and
> kill him at 11pm since that is a sufficient cooling off period. Bad
> examples i know but you get the jist.
Yeah, I get what you mean. My concern would be that, by it's discretionary nature, you'll get cases where it should be applied and isn't, or vice versa. All of which leads to more appeals, etc etc. If we removed the mandatory life sentence, and replaced it with (for example) the system of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder then...well, provocation and the like would still be valid defences, but they wouldn't have the same urgency or be open to the same misuse as they currently are.
> I think the judge bought it up in the summing up of the case.
M'kay, cheers for that.
> No. It's at the judges discression. If someone rings you up calling
> you names and such, and you go to their house, and you are still mad
> then kill him then you can still use provocation even if it took you
> an hour to get there. However, if your neighbour had been playing
> loud music and stopped at 10pm, you cannot go round his house and
> kill him at 11pm since that is a sufficient cooling off period. Bad
> examples i know but you get the jist.
Yeah, I get what you mean. My concern would be that, by it's discretionary nature, you'll get cases where it should be applied and isn't, or vice versa. All of which leads to more appeals, etc etc. If we removed the mandatory life sentence, and replaced it with (for example) the system of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree murder then...well, provocation and the like would still be valid defences, but they wouldn't have the same urgency or be open to the same misuse as they currently are.
> I think the judge bought it up in the summing up of the case.
M'kay, cheers for that.
Page: