Whenever this debate is rolled out again into the media spotlight and some of the comments suggest bringing back the death penalty, I cannot help but think about what would have happened in the cases of the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 and Maguire 7? I don't think that there are any adequate excuses for hanging innocent people.
Even I accept that in a small minority of cases that a sentence of life imprisonment should mean that the prisoner remains in custody until death. But, for the vast majority, I believe that their life sentences should be altered to determinate sentences as reflected by the trial judge's tariff in each individual case.
And, that the automatic life sentence should be scrapped on the basis that it was knee-jerk legislation which any thinking Parliament in it's right mind would not have passed had it thought the issue through properly.
Notsaussure covers McDonald's attempt to change the meaning of McJob. Some of the commenters on the Tory article about should life sentences be for life, referred to the luxury of prison. Having spent 35 years inside, I have seen some improvements in living conditions. However, it is a mis-perception to refer to prison as being a luxury. I think you would only have to ask Jefferey Archer and Jonathan Aitken whether prison met their understanding of the word luxury.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
It's not widely appreciated -- I certainly didn't realise until I read the Law Commission Report on Murder, Manslaughter and Infanticide about which Lord Phillips spoke in his lecture -- that when Parliament passed the Homicide Act 1957 it didn't intend a lot of people subsequently convicted of murder, and thus given mandatory life sentences, to be convicted of murder at all.
ReplyDeleteAt least according the Law Commission, Parliament was assured that, as the law stood, an assault that wasn't intended to kill the victim but nevertheless resulted in his death was only murder if it was intended to cause really serious injury and the defendant was proven to have at least been aware that the harm done was life-threatening.
Shortly after the Act was passed, though, the Court of Appeal indicated that intention to cause really serious injury, without any awareness the harm done was life-threatening, was sufficient to convict for murder rather than manslaughter. (see paras 1.25 to 1.30 of the report)
Consequently, if A hits B in the face, intending to break his nose, and B falls down as a result of the blow, hits his head against a rock and this kills him, whether or not A is guilty of murder depends on whether the jury think a broken nose is a really serious injury.
As a result, lots of people have been given mandatory life sentences for murder in circumstances that Parliament certainly didn't think would attract such a penalty when they voted for the Homicide Act.
Jefferey Archer lives his whole life in luxury, to lock him in a council flat would amount to his idea of prison.
ReplyDeleteGet a fucking life.
And what then of the McDonalds 12? The poor cunts who had to spend the remainder of their days off cleaning up the sick which some customers had yakked up after eating some of the purile crap which McDonalds restaurants call Big Macs?
ReplyDelete