The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Sorry
The case of R v Thornton proved this in 1996. The woman was regulary beaten by her husband and one night he came home drunk and thretened to beat her up later. He then fell asleep on the sofa and she stabbed him. It was held that a final minor incident was sufficient provocation where there had been a history of violence.
Normally if there was a gap between the provocation and the incident, provocation will not lie as a suitable defence since there was a 'cooling off' period. But in this case the court held that the fact that Mrs Thornton suffered from battered wives syndrome was a characteristic to be taken into consideration.
Normally if there was a gap between the provocation and the incident, provocation will not lie as a suitable defence since there was a 'cooling off' period. But in this case the court held that the fact that Mrs Thornton suffered from battered wives syndrome was a characteristic to be taken into consideration.
Light wrote:
>
> God yes. Personally I think we ought to make more effort to fix
> society rather than banging on about how prisons should be warehouses
> for slave labour and torture, but then that's just me...
That'll never happen though. Prisons will always exist.
>
> God yes. Personally I think we ought to make more effort to fix
> society rather than banging on about how prisons should be warehouses
> for slave labour and torture, but then that's just me...
That'll never happen though. Prisons will always exist.
~Darling~ wrote:
> Battered Wives syndrome is classed as a characteristic. If the judge
> is satisfied that another battered wife would have reacted in the
> same way then she can use the defence of provocation.
>
Yeah? Mm, I didn't know that. When did that come into force, cos when I was in practice, Battered Wives Syndrome wasn't given any legal weighting. It's good (and overdue) that it has been though.
> The provocation does not have to be severe, just enough to make the
> reasonable man have a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If
> the judge is satisfied that the reasonable man would have also lost
> control at something so minor then the defendant can use the defence.
He CAN use the defence, yeah. And if it's unsuccessful? Maybe she'd cheated before, so what made this time different? Or maybe he has a record of violence (say, for example, a couple of assault convictions from teenaged years) previously. They would both undermine that defence, either fairly or unfairly, and a chap could find himself in prison for life when the facts of the case indicate he should serve, say, 10 years. Which the tariff system currently takes care of. It's only when those who have been fed at the teat of the Daily Mail start ranting about how Life should mean Life that the problem arises.
> Battered Wives syndrome is classed as a characteristic. If the judge
> is satisfied that another battered wife would have reacted in the
> same way then she can use the defence of provocation.
>
Yeah? Mm, I didn't know that. When did that come into force, cos when I was in practice, Battered Wives Syndrome wasn't given any legal weighting. It's good (and overdue) that it has been though.
> The provocation does not have to be severe, just enough to make the
> reasonable man have a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If
> the judge is satisfied that the reasonable man would have also lost
> control at something so minor then the defendant can use the defence.
He CAN use the defence, yeah. And if it's unsuccessful? Maybe she'd cheated before, so what made this time different? Or maybe he has a record of violence (say, for example, a couple of assault convictions from teenaged years) previously. They would both undermine that defence, either fairly or unfairly, and a chap could find himself in prison for life when the facts of the case indicate he should serve, say, 10 years. Which the tariff system currently takes care of. It's only when those who have been fed at the teat of the Daily Mail start ranting about how Life should mean Life that the problem arises.
Light wrote:
> '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.
Battered Wives syndrome is classed as a characteristic. If the judge is satisfied that another battered wife would have reacted in the same way then she can use the defence of provocation.
The provocation does not have to be severe, just enough to make the reasonable man have a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If the judge is satisfied that the reasonable man would have also lost control at something so minor then the defendant can use the defence.
> '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.
Battered Wives syndrome is classed as a characteristic. If the judge is satisfied that another battered wife would have reacted in the same way then she can use the defence of provocation.
The provocation does not have to be severe, just enough to make the reasonable man have a sudden and temporary loss of self control. If the judge is satisfied that the reasonable man would have also lost control at something so minor then the defendant can use the defence.
Belldandy wrote:
> Basically it comes down to the value we place on life in our society,
> because to get a life sentence you usually have to have taken another
> life (not always, obviously). It's up to the Judge to hand down the
> correct setence, and I say that if he or she deems a life sentence
> necessary then it should mean life, else it cheapens the life taken.
> I'm not exactly clear on why we actually need convicted murderer's
> and suchlike back in with the population.
Wow...so you don't actually know about life sentences being mandatory, or about the tariff system applied...yet you feel you can comment with authority about prison?
Heaven save us from egomaniacal fat boys who want to be loved...
> Basically it comes down to the value we place on life in our society,
> because to get a life sentence you usually have to have taken another
> life (not always, obviously). It's up to the Judge to hand down the
> correct setence, and I say that if he or she deems a life sentence
> necessary then it should mean life, else it cheapens the life taken.
> I'm not exactly clear on why we actually need convicted murderer's
> and suchlike back in with the population.
Wow...so you don't actually know about life sentences being mandatory, or about the tariff system applied...yet you feel you can comment with authority about prison?
Heaven save us from egomaniacal fat boys who want to be loved...
Basically it comes down to the value we place on life in our society, because to get a life sentence you usually have to have taken another life (not always, obviously). It's up to the Judge to hand down the correct setence, and I say that if he or she deems a life sentence necessary then it should mean life, else it cheapens the life taken. I'm not exactly clear on why we actually need convicted murderer's and suchlike back in with the population.
maddmun wrote:
> Nah.
> it's the same.
> Lets so throwing knives at a wall was a crime.
>
> I am throwing knives at a wall, blindfolded.
> Someone happens to walk in front of that wall
> I stab em in the head and kill them.
> It's their fault, not mine.
> If I get a sentence, it should be for thrwing knives.
I see where maddmun is coming from here.
In this instance, he's recklessly endangering life in either scenario (whether he killed someone or not), but if nobody dies, nobody cares what he was doing. If he happens to kill someone he's strung up for it.
Either way, he was recklessly endangering life.
You can look at this argument one of three ways:
1) Either way, he'd just be throwing knives against a wall - so the lesser penalty could apply
2) Either way, he *could* have killed someone, so there should be a suitably huge sentance.
Both of these seem a bit inappropriate.
3) Either way, he was recklessly endangering peoples' life, although perhaps for such an act, the present punishment would be excessive for the nature of the endangerment (since we don't know the details of his knife throwing escapades).
A sentance should reflect the serious risk to life, but should be decided on the nature of *his* actions, those within his control, not the outcome, which includes factors beyone his control.
Of course, families of victims will want harsher punishment where a loved one has died.
That's understandable, but it's also irrational, looking to sate a thirst for vengence rather than considering the real wrongs of the actions of the perpetrator.
The only key problem I foresee is that you lose the obvious deterrant effect of 'someone dies, if you're deemed responsible, you're in trouble'.
It may not be strictly 'just', but it must keep people a little more alert to the consequences of their actions.
Then again, what fear-effect you'd lose in a softer punishment for circumstances where someone died, you'd make up for in punishment whether someone died or not.
> Nah.
> it's the same.
> Lets so throwing knives at a wall was a crime.
>
> I am throwing knives at a wall, blindfolded.
> Someone happens to walk in front of that wall
> I stab em in the head and kill them.
> It's their fault, not mine.
> If I get a sentence, it should be for thrwing knives.
I see where maddmun is coming from here.
In this instance, he's recklessly endangering life in either scenario (whether he killed someone or not), but if nobody dies, nobody cares what he was doing. If he happens to kill someone he's strung up for it.
Either way, he was recklessly endangering life.
You can look at this argument one of three ways:
1) Either way, he'd just be throwing knives against a wall - so the lesser penalty could apply
2) Either way, he *could* have killed someone, so there should be a suitably huge sentance.
Both of these seem a bit inappropriate.
3) Either way, he was recklessly endangering peoples' life, although perhaps for such an act, the present punishment would be excessive for the nature of the endangerment (since we don't know the details of his knife throwing escapades).
A sentance should reflect the serious risk to life, but should be decided on the nature of *his* actions, those within his control, not the outcome, which includes factors beyone his control.
Of course, families of victims will want harsher punishment where a loved one has died.
That's understandable, but it's also irrational, looking to sate a thirst for vengence rather than considering the real wrongs of the actions of the perpetrator.
The only key problem I foresee is that you lose the obvious deterrant effect of 'someone dies, if you're deemed responsible, you're in trouble'.
It may not be strictly 'just', but it must keep people a little more alert to the consequences of their actions.
Then again, what fear-effect you'd lose in a softer punishment for circumstances where someone died, you'd make up for in punishment whether someone died or not.
~Darling~ wrote:
> Someone asked me the other day..if you found yourself homeless and
> jobless and living on the street for whatever reason, would you
> commit a crime in order to go to prison for a roof over your head and
> meals every day?
God yes. Personally I think we ought to make more effort to fix society rather than banging on about how prisons should be warehouses for slave labour and torture, but then that's just me...
> Someone asked me the other day..if you found yourself homeless and
> jobless and living on the street for whatever reason, would you
> commit a crime in order to go to prison for a roof over your head and
> meals every day?
God yes. Personally I think we ought to make more effort to fix society rather than banging on about how prisons should be warehouses for slave labour and torture, but then that's just me...
~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.
>
> 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.
Page: