Is it me ????

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Our homicide laws are currently the subject of reform which would introduce the North American terminology of first and second degree murder, if with different meaning.

Currently, there are two partial defences to murder which reduce the conviction to manslaughter, and these are provocation and diminished responsibility. To make out a successful plea of provocation the defendant has to show that he acted as the 'reasonable man' would have done in the face of the provocation that was present. For a successful diminished responsibility plea, the defendant has to prove a medical 'abnormality of mind' that substantially impaired mental responsibility for the act committed.

Without knowing the facts of the particular case Bruce mentions, I agree entirely with the sentiments that it can rarely be right to label that kind of deliberate killing 'mansluaghter', whatever the provocation or diminished responsibility (which are, in fact, a bit of a shambles anyway, and often pleaded together in the hope that one might stick). The problem we have at the moment is that what we call 'murder' carries an automatic 'life' sentence which judges are not always happy to give. Whatever the eventual sentence, I imagine it's very hard to see the killer of a close friend or family member convicted of manslaughter, when only 'murder' properly conveys the seriousness of what has taken place. Much better to allow different levels of culpability in murder to be recognised at the sentencing stage, in my opinion. The majority of academic opinion agrees with this viewpoint, but sadly no government would be prepared to risk the political damage of looking 'soft on crime' by removing the automatic life sentence. What people don't appreciate is that what is actually happening is that far fewer people are being convicted of murder, even when an intention to kill (or do GBH) has been formed, because there is a perceived need to avoid the automatic sentence via the back door of a partial defence.

If I had my way, I would abolish the defence of provocation tomorrow. We tell our children that 'he was teasing me' or even 'he hit me first' are not acceptable reasons for smacking the other kid in the face, yet we recognise a similar kind of excuse in our law of homicide. When can it ever be the response of a 'reasonable man' to decided to kill someone, even in a hot-blooded crime passionel?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Thanks, PB. As noted earlier, over here both second and first degree have an automatic 'life' sentence - the difference is in eligibility for parole. Wouldn't that solve your problem of 'life' seeming too much?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Thanks, PB. As noted earlier, over here both second and first degree have an automatic 'life' sentence - the difference is in eligibility for parole. Wouldn't that solve your problem of 'life' seeming too much?

Maybe, but in theory at least, I think I'm right in saying that even all our mandatory lifers are eligible for parole anyway. Perhaps there are exceptions.

I'd be wary of 'back door' sentencing policy - I'd rather get the sentence right up front than rely on the parole system, but perhaps Canada's system is better resourced and more deserving of confidence than ours.

[bobo the clown]

Maybe, but in theory at least, I think I'm right in saying that even all our mandatory lifers are eligible for parole anyway. Perhaps there are exceptions

No, the 'tarrif' CAN be set at no parole. That's rare however & tends to be for a repeat offender of very serious proprtions.

If your memory serves you well you may recall the fuss when the Home Secretary was passing down tarrif advice & the judiciary complained that this was interference. Then Europe got involved.

Nonetheless you CAN be jailed without hope of parole.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Maybe, but in theory at least, I think I'm right in saying that even all our mandatory lifers are eligible for parole anyway. Perhaps there are exceptions

No, the 'tarrif' CAN be set at no parole. That's rare however & tends to be for a repeat offender of very serious proprtions.

If your memory serves you well you may recall the fuss when the Home Secretary was passing down tarrif advice & the judiciary complained that this was interference. Then Europe got involved.

Nonetheless you CAN be jailed without hope of parole.

Ah yes, I thought it was possible in exceptional cases for parole to be ruled out completely.

[Nozza]

Our homicide laws are currently the subject of reform which would introduce the North American terminology of first and second degree murder, if with different meaning.

Currently, there are two partial defences to murder which reduce the conviction to manslaughter, and these are provocation and diminished responsibility. To make out a successful plea of provocation the defendant has to show that he acted as the 'reasonable man' would have done in the face of the provocation that was present. For a successful diminished responsibility plea, the defendant has to prove a medical 'abnormality of mind' that substantially impaired mental responsibility for the act committed.

Without knowing the facts of the particular case Bruce mentions, I agree entirely with the sentiments that it can rarely be right to label that kind of deliberate killing 'mansluaghter', whatever the provocation or diminished responsibility (which are, in fact, a bit of a shambles anyway, and often pleaded together in the hope that one might stick). The problem we have at the moment is that what we call 'murder' carries an automatic 'life' sentence which judges are not always happy to give. Whatever the eventual sentence, I imagine it's very hard to see the killer of a close friend or family member convicted of manslaughter, when only 'murder' properly conveys the seriousness of what has taken place. Much better to allow different levels of culpability in murder to be recognised at the sentencing stage, in my opinion. The majority of academic opinion agrees with this viewpoint, but sadly no government would be prepared to risk the political damage of looking 'soft on crime' by removing the automatic life sentence. What people don't appreciate is that what is actually happening is that far fewer people are being convicted of murder, even when an intention to kill (or do GBH) has been formed, because there is a perceived need to avoid the automatic sentence via the back door of a partial defence.

If I had my way, I would abolish the defence of provocation tomorrow. We tell our children that 'he was teasing me' or even 'he hit me first' are not acceptable reasons for smacking the other kid in the face, yet we recognise a similar kind of excuse in our law of homicide. When can it ever be the response of a 'reasonable man' to decided to kill someone, even in a hot-blooded crime passionel?

I disagree.

[Bruce Rioja]

The problem we have at the moment is that what we call 'murder' carries an automatic 'life' sentence which judges are not always happy to give.

But what, exactly, constitutes a 'life' sentence in the UK? It certainly isn't 'until the end of the offender's days', and what we increasingly hear is that "The Judge handed down a life sentence with a recommendation that the offender serves a minimum of X (though I've recently heard as few as nine) years." How come there's so much autocracy on the part of a Judge being involved in what would, or should, appear to be a pre-determined jail sentence?

[Montreal Wanderer]

The problem we have at the moment is that what we call 'murder' carries an automatic 'life' sentence which judges are not always happy to give.

But what, exactly, constitutes a 'life' sentence in the UK? It certainly isn't 'until the end of the offender's days', and what we increasingly hear is that "The Judge handed down a life sentence with a recommendation that the offender serves a minimum of X (though I've recently heard as few as nine) years." How come there's so much autocracy on the part of a Judge being involved in what would, or should, appear to be a pre-determined jail sentence?

I believe that over here we now have mandatory minimum sentences that must be served. So for first degree murder you might have life with eligibility for parole after 25 years. The judge can increase that minimum but not lessen it. Also eligibility for parole does not mean you get it - you have to satisfy the parole board that you are 'reformed' or no longer a danger to society.