Headmaster's killer to get new identity

[TANGODANCER]

these things keep happening and one side comes up with outrage,, principally based on the inadequacies of the law to make the punishment meet the crime, whilst the other upholds the law's principals, yet blames it for its own poor judgement in too-light sentencing.

It might well just be a lawyer's distinction, but as Monty has already helpfully pointed out, perhaps in the other thread on this case, sentence length is much more a political question than it is a legal one.

And thereby hangs a tale. The law is supposed to be omnipotent yet allows loophops on a political basis. "The law is the law" is an inflexible statement yet it flexes at its will.

[communistworkethic]

The law isn't omnipotent, and I don't know anyone who would suggest it is or should be as it would cover every single aspect of your life. Plus sentencing and the law are two different issues, they are not one and the same.

[TANGODANCER]

The law isn't omnipotent, and I don't know anyone who would suggest it is or should be as it would cover every single aspect of your life. Plus sentencing and the law are two different issues, they are not one and the same.

Then I'll re-phrase that to "within its own confines". Political flexibility shouldn't exist if all men are equal and laws are created for the general benefit of all, and surely that's what the law is based on? Fixed term punishments should be decided upon as a generality to fit the crime, including re-offences, rather than judges discretion based on political issues or on how full the prisons are. If this is not the case, then all men are not equal. Just my opinion.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The law isn't omnipotent, and I don't know anyone who would suggest it is or should be as it would cover every single aspect of your life. Plus sentencing and the law are two different issues, they are not one and the same.

Then I'll re-phrase that to "within its own confines". Political flexibility shouldn't exist if all men are equal and laws are created for the general benefit of all, and surely that's what the law is based on? Fixed term punishments should be decided upon as a generality to fit the crime, including re-offences, rather than judges discretion based on political issues or on how full the prisons are. If this is not the case, then all men are not equal. Just my opinion.

I am not sure that judges have as much discretion as you might think, TD - there have to be guidelines and precedents surely. However, I believe judges should have some discretion on whether to give the minimum or maximum. Circumstances certainly alter cases and mitigating factors may exist. Surely things should not be as black and white as you suggest. Furthermore I would be surprised if judges are influenced by political questions or the jail population in any specific case - those aren't their problem. The sentencing guidelines or instructions from the Lord Chancellor (or whoever) may change because of such considerations, but not the decision of a single judge in a specific case. Of course I could be way off base here.

[communistworkethic]

The law isn't omnipotent, and I don't know anyone who would suggest it is or should be as it would cover every single aspect of your life. Plus sentencing and the law are two different issues, they are not one and the same.

Then I'll re-phrase that to "within its own confines". Political flexibility shouldn't exist if all men are equal and laws are created for the general benefit of all, and surely that's what the law is based on? Fixed term punishments should be decided upon as a generality to fit the crime, including re-offences, rather than judges discretion based on political issues or on how full the prisons are. If this is not the case, then all men are not equal. Just my opinion.

you cannot have fixed terms based on generalities. No two crimes are the same and nor should they be treated as such. Judges do not have discretion based on political issues and I reckon they argue to the death if anyone suggested they do or should do. They have discretion within sentencing parameters based on the facts of teh case and supplementary evidence provided about the accused.

And your comment about how full prisons are is puzzling seeing as your "generalities and fixed term sentencing" would see prisons a full to bursting in no time at all and leave judges no room to deal with that scenario. Or do you just expect prisons to be built infinitum, or at least until there's one 200 yards from Bradford Road?

[TANGODANCER]

The law isn't omnipotent, and I don't know anyone who would suggest it is or should be as it would cover every single aspect of your life. Plus sentencing and the law are two different issues, they are not one and the same.

Then I'll re-phrase that to "within its own confines". Political flexibility shouldn't exist if all men are equal and laws are created for the general benefit of all, and surely that's what the law is based on? Fixed term punishments should be decided upon as a generality to fit the crime, including re-offences, rather than judges discretion based on political issues or on how full the prisons are. If this is not the case, then all men are not equal. Just my opinion.

you cannot have fixed terms based on generalities. No two crimes are the same and nor should they be treated as such. Judges do not have discretion based on political issues and I reckon they argue to the death if anyone suggested they do or should do. They have discretion within sentencing parameters based on the facts of teh case and supplementary evidence provided about the accused.

And your comment about how full prisons are is puzzling seeing as your "generalities and fixed term sentencing" would see prisons a full to bursting in no time at all and leave judges no room to deal with that scenario. Or do you just expect prisons to be built infinitum, or at least until there's one 200 yards from Bradford Road?

Bit of a silly comment. I take your views and express my own.

Since the Governments "Crack down on crime" seems a little innappropriate in as much as we have more of it than ever right now, shouldn't the stiffer punishments be enforced to put criminals off by their severity, thus needing less prisons, or do we just build more snooker and TV rooms to encourage them? The Bastille concept is way behind us, as is hanging for sheep-stealing, but at least the very thought of both was a rather terrifying deterrant. Goes right back to that old Parental Control root for my money; something that the future chose to leave behind in its infinite wisdom. Not every parent on earth was a child beater for ass-tanning.

[communistworkethic]

and the death sentence has done what for murder rates in other countries?????

[TANGODANCER]

and the death sentence has done what for murder rates in other countries?????

Death sentences are something that (hopefully) are being diminished in law, not instituted. Supposedly we are up amongst the top of the table in "civilised" countries", and then again, other countries doings have no bearing on our laws. Prisons aren't only full of murderers. If that was the only crime we'd probably only need a couple of decent ones. One of the biggest problems, in my eyes, is the age that kids are turning to serious crime. Right and wrong lessons should start at birth, not at fourteen, by which time it's far too late.

[Montreal Wanderer]

and the death sentence has done what for murder rates in other countries?????

Death sentences are something that (hopefully) are being diminished in law, not instituted. Supposedly we are up amongst the top of the table in "civilised" countries", and then again, other countries doings have no bearing on our laws. Prisons aren't only full of murderers. If that was the only crime we'd probably only need a couple of decent ones. One of the biggest problems, in my eyes, is the age that kids are turning to serious crime. Right and wrong lessons should start at birth, not at fourteen, by which time it's far too late.

Death sentences are not only given for murder in other countries, TD - in Nigeria women have been sentenced to death for being raped and getting pregnant. Four countries account for over 90% of the the death sentences carried out each year (I'll leave you to guess which), and more countries each year abolish it. However, there has never been satisfactory evidence that capital punishment is a deterrent.

[communistworkethic]

and the death sentence has done what for murder rates in other countries?????

Death sentences are something that (hopefully) are being diminished in law, not instituted. Supposedly we are up amongst the top of the table in "civilised" countries", and then again, other countries doings have no bearing on our laws. Prisons aren't only full of murderers. If that was the only crime we'd probably only need a couple of decent ones. One of the biggest problems, in my eyes, is the age that kids are turning to serious crime. Right and wrong lessons should start at birth, not at fourteen, by which time it's far too late.

you said you want stiffer penalties as a dtererrant you can't get any stiffer than death and it doesn't work.

It 's "tough on the causes of crime" that poiliticians have failed so misearbly on more than anything.

[TANGODANCER]

and the death sentence has done what for murder rates in other countries?????

Death sentences are something that (hopefully) are being diminished in law, not instituted. Supposedly we are up amongst the top of the table in "civilised" countries", and then again, other countries doings have no bearing on our laws. Prisons aren't only full of murderers. If that was the only crime we'd probably only need a couple of decent ones. One of the biggest problems, in my eyes, is the age that kids are turning to serious crime. Right and wrong lessons should start at birth, not at fourteen, by which time it's far too late.

you said you want stiffer penalties as a dtererrant you can't get any stiffer than death and it doesn't work.

It 's "tough on the causes of crime" that poiliticians have failed so misearbly on more than anything.

Fair enough, but what are the causes of crime (and crime is far more vast than just murder) ? Comes right back to our lax society in teaching kids between right and wrong and using some parental control to enforce this. Far too many parents don't know (and in many cases don't care) where their kids are in the evenings and even during the daytime.

This has been a knock-on effect with each generation since the fifties. That period saw kids getting a little laxity from the aftermath of the war years and enjoying freedoms they'd never had before (primarily because money had always been a real deterrant to almost any form of luxury and entertainment). Since then each ensuing generation has torn the ass out of that freedom to the point of where kids are now ruling the roost and parents have been increasingly restrained in their control by laws that are taken as the norm because of a minority and our willingness to follow other countries dictums.

Two things deterred crime in my childhood: The Police and the embarrassment of being involved with them and seen as law-breakers, and the added dimension of the fact that your parents would give you hell for getting involved in trouble. Both are now regarded as no-go. Kids see being arrested as a badge of honour to gain respect amongst each other and grabbing a teenager by the scruff of the neck and telling them to behave is a prison offence in itself.. At one time any adult would do this to trouble-makers on buses etc and kids would take notice. Try that now and you're up to your neck in shxt, and kids know it and behave accordingly. You're also quite likely to have a gang of them kicking shit out of you and laughing at it in the bargain. Swearing an oath on a Bible is now a joke in court and lying is all part of the game. Why ask kids to swear oaths when you know damn well they don't have any effect. A bit like a scrote who's never worn a suit in his life, and wouldn't be seen dead in one normally, suddenly turning up in court looking like a choirboy. Is this not in itself an attempt at perjury?

I have no solutions to what is needed except by reverting to past methods that worked (considered dated and old-fashioned of course, but they did work), of which no one will take the slightest notice, so my arguments are futile anyway. Except of course to anyone old enought to have had six of the best at school and an ass-tanning from their parents.

[norm the jedi]

Sentencing is and should be about punishment..
Hard to see death not working on that basis.. Also reduces recidivism dramatically and doesn't overcrowd prisons..

Hippies are responsible.. Well them and Thatcher.. Liberal bedwetting hand ringers who believe there is a cause and social effect for everything.. and free market Feck you policies where you try to sell stuff to folk who already own it an propogate the view that the law is for everyone else and there's no such thing as soceity.. Creates an underclass of chavtastic small minded greedy acquisitiveness that everyone knows how to deal with, but no one does because there isn't a representative or talking head who could possibly tell us what we all know - that some people are just born Cunks for whom euthanasia is too good.. and anything short of hard labour and porridge is seen as a doss.. Community sentencing unless it is backed with meaningful sanction and discomfort is seen as getting off..
What we need is a decent war and conscription..

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well, the argument has seguewayed to the breakdown of societal values and I don't know enough about UK society to comment. Yet I must note that perjury is not new, simply because kids of today do not believe in God. It has been a crime for a very long time dating back to when just about everyone was a believer. In the OED I note:

From at least the 12th cent., perjury constituted the offence under ecclesiastical law of breaking an oath, irrrespective of whether this had been taken within or outside judicial proceedings.

So the oath per se has never really been a deterrent (especially in one could confess later and be absolved).

[TANGODANCER]

Well, the argument has seguewayed to the breakdown of societal values and I don't know enough about UK society to comment. Yet I must note that perjury is not new, simply because kids of today do not believe in God. It has been a crime for a very long time dating back to when just about everyone was a believer. In the OED I note:

From at least the 12th cent., perjury constituted the offence under ecclesiastical law of breaking an oath, irrrespective of whether this had been taken within or outside judicial proceedings.

So the oath per se has never really been a deterrent (especially in one could confess later and be absolved).

Which comes from the entirely misbegooten notion that you live life as you please and then, on your deathbed, just join your hands together, look up and say "Sorry mate, didn't really mean any of it. Am I forgiven now?" Yeah, right.

[Worthy4England]

Well, the argument has seguewayed to the breakdown of societal values and I don't know enough about UK society to comment. Yet I must note that perjury is not new, simply because kids of today do not believe in God. It has been a crime for a very long time dating back to when just about everyone was a believer. In the OED I note:

From at least the 12th cent., perjury constituted the offence under ecclesiastical law of breaking an oath, irrrespective of whether this had been taken within or outside judicial proceedings.

So the oath per se has never really been a deterrent (especially in one could confess later and be absolved).

Which comes from the entirely misbegooten notion that you live life as you please and then, on your deathbed, just join your hands together, look up and say "Sorry mate, didn't really mean any of it. Am I forgiven now?" Yeah, right.

Hmmm - segued? pronounced Seg-way-ed...as in a smooth, uninterrupted transtion from one thing to another? - I'm with Norm the Jedi on this one...hang murderers, chop the hands of thieves, birch minor offenders just because you can....don't want to re-habilitate the scrotes...(I would have incurred a couple of birchings by now but hey that's life)

[warthog]

Well, the argument has seguewayed to the breakdown of societal values and I don't know enough about UK society to comment. Yet I must note that perjury is not new, simply because kids of today do not believe in God. It has been a crime for a very long time dating back to when just about everyone was a believer. In the OED I note:

From at least the 12th cent., perjury constituted the offence under ecclesiastical law of breaking an oath, irrrespective of whether this had been taken within or outside judicial proceedings.

So the oath per se has never really been a deterrent (especially in one could confess later and be absolved).

Which comes from the entirely misbegooten notion that you live life as you please and then, on your deathbed, just join your hands together, look up and say "Sorry mate, didn't really mean any of it. Am I forgiven now?" Yeah, right.

Hmmm - segued? pronounced Seg-way-ed...as in a smooth, uninterrupted transtion from one thing to another? - I'm with Norm the Jedi on this one...hang murderers, chop the hands of thieves, birch minor offenders just because you can....don't want to re-habilitate the scrotes...(I would have incurred a couple of birchings by now but hey that's life)

Now you're for it.

[Bruce Rioja]

So we should keep shit like this alive? Why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 970366.stm

[Montreal Wanderer]

Hmmm - segued? pronounced Seg-way-ed...as in a smooth, uninterrupted transtion from one thing to another? - I'm with Norm the Jedi on this one...hang murderers, chop the hands of thieves, birch minor offenders just because you can....don't want to re-habilitate the scrotes...(I would have incurred a couple of birchings by now but hey that's life)

Now you're for it.

No he isn't - he is correct (certainly in England). I used a common North American spelling and that, I think, was my mistake on a UK forum. Segue is unpronouncable to Americans. My apologies.

[Montreal Wanderer]

So we should keep shit like this alive? Why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 970366.stm

Because it is the law. Because UK has signed the convention against the death penalty. Because it is a condition of being a member of the Council of Europe.

[Bruce Rioja]

So we should keep shit like this alive? Why?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfo ... 970366.stm

Because it is the law. Because UK has signed the convention against the death penalty. Because it is a condition of being a member of the Council of Europe.

Any worthwhile reasons though?