Ireland's Own Crossword No 1827
Crosswords3 mins ago
Should The Death Penalty Be Reintroduced In Uk?
108 Answers
I believe death penalty should not be reintroduced, as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is as effective against murder as death penalty because:
• It is possible that death penalty can be carried on a prison who actually did not commit the crime.
• A desperate murderer may try to avoid arrest by committing more murder to save himself/herself from facing the death penalty.
• life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder.
As a person who has done a conversion course in Law for graduates (LLDip), I know that the intention (mens rea) for murder, under English Law, is ‘malice aforethought’ & the fixed penalty for murder is fixed at statutory live imprisonment. The medical condition of the victim is not an excuse to murder in Law – as the perpetrator ‘takes the victim as he found him’ (i.e. in good or poor health), hence a terminally ill person can be murdered.
There are different degrees of killing of a human being – from mercy killing, accident, self-defence, negligence, diminished responsibility, provocation, insanity, intentional killing to evil killing in aggravated circumstances. Hence the penalty for causing the death of a human being can range from community service (like ‘mercy killing’, genuine accidental death) to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
• It is possible that death penalty can be carried on a prison who actually did not commit the crime.
• A desperate murderer may try to avoid arrest by committing more murder to save himself/herself from facing the death penalty.
• life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder.
As a person who has done a conversion course in Law for graduates (LLDip), I know that the intention (mens rea) for murder, under English Law, is ‘malice aforethought’ & the fixed penalty for murder is fixed at statutory live imprisonment. The medical condition of the victim is not an excuse to murder in Law – as the perpetrator ‘takes the victim as he found him’ (i.e. in good or poor health), hence a terminally ill person can be murdered.
There are different degrees of killing of a human being – from mercy killing, accident, self-defence, negligence, diminished responsibility, provocation, insanity, intentional killing to evil killing in aggravated circumstances. Hence the penalty for causing the death of a human being can range from community service (like ‘mercy killing’, genuine accidental death) to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Answers
I would be against the reintroducti
21:51 Sun 30th Jul 2017
Zacs-Master stated, “some murders are done in a cold and calculated way e.g. assassinations, serial murders, etc”.
A murderer should have the intention to kill or cause GBH and the mens rea is ’malice aforethought’.
A person with such a state of mind is certainly very disordered, desperate & beyond the pale.
Of course, as a graduate (in Biochemistry), I did the recognised conversion in law for graduates (LLDip).
A murderer should have the intention to kill or cause GBH and the mens rea is ’malice aforethought’.
A person with such a state of mind is certainly very disordered, desperate & beyond the pale.
Of course, as a graduate (in Biochemistry), I did the recognised conversion in law for graduates (LLDip).
namoi, those you mention are a tiny minority of murderers, there will always be those few and NOTHING will deter them! They are the ones who are correctly given a whole life tariff
Brady was pleading for decades to be allowed to starve himself to death but he was tube fed so that his wish could not happen and he was forced to see out his whole life tariff.
Brady was pleading for decades to be allowed to starve himself to death but he was tube fed so that his wish could not happen and he was forced to see out his whole life tariff.
Your use of English is a little confusing. What you really meant to write was 'there's no point in introducing the death penalty because would be murderers would simply ignore it'
That doesn't mean life imprisonment is a 'sufficient' deterrent, it suggests that there is no deterrent. In some most cases (you can never make sweeping generalisations where the human mind is the subject, as I'm sure you well know having an LLdip).
That doesn't mean life imprisonment is a 'sufficient' deterrent, it suggests that there is no deterrent. In some most cases (you can never make sweeping generalisations where the human mind is the subject, as I'm sure you well know having an LLdip).
Zacs-Master
As I said, "Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder".
This is because the maximum sentence for murder is whether (1) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or (2) death penalty are both ghastly sentences that would not weigh on the minds of murderers when he or she commits the crime.
As I said, "Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder".
This is because the maximum sentence for murder is whether (1) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or (2) death penalty are both ghastly sentences that would not weigh on the minds of murderers when he or she commits the crime.
bhg481 asked, "What about a hit-man? It's just a job to him".
A hit man (as opposed to a serial killer) will be unlikely to receive the death penalty, even if the maximum sentence for murder is death.
The maximum sentence for murder is whether (1) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or (2) death penalty are both ghastly sentences that would not weigh on the minds of murderers when he or she commits the crime.
A hit man (as opposed to a serial killer) will be unlikely to receive the death penalty, even if the maximum sentence for murder is death.
The maximum sentence for murder is whether (1) life imprisonment without the possibility of parole or (2) death penalty are both ghastly sentences that would not weigh on the minds of murderers when he or she commits the crime.
Zacs-Master stated, "I've already proven to be incorrect"
You have certainly have not proven in any way that my original statement "Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder" is incorrect.
To the contrary you admitted that it is correct to say, "'there's no point in introducing the death penalty because would be murderers would simply ignore it'. Herewith I rest my case.
You have certainly have not proven in any way that my original statement "Life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is sufficient deterrent to murder" is incorrect.
To the contrary you admitted that it is correct to say, "'there's no point in introducing the death penalty because would be murderers would simply ignore it'. Herewith I rest my case.
I think the sentences should be tougher, any taking of life should mean a whole life sentence, we are far too soft in this country, people are given 10 or 12 years for taking a life, that is totally out of order, they're out in half that time, whilst the victims families have to live the rest of their lives grieving for their loved ones.
Child killers, terrorists, police killers should get the death penalty in my opinion.
Child killers, terrorists, police killers should get the death penalty in my opinion.
Zacs-Master asked, “Could you give me some legal background as to why a hit man wouldn't receive the death penalty”?
In UK, by the enactment of the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, the death penalty for capital murder in England, Scotland and Wales had been abolished. Hence the case law for death from hit crimes is very scarce.
A USA discussion website https:/
In UK, by the enactment of the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act 1965, the death penalty for capital murder in England, Scotland and Wales had been abolished. Hence the case law for death from hit crimes is very scarce.
A USA discussion website https:/
