Clare wrote:
People have been kicked to death "spontaneously" on many occasions, particularly by groups. It is still cold blooded murder.

For "murder" intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Giving someone a kicking, while abhorrent, wouldn't neccessarily constitute intent to kill, unless you're talking about changing the law.
I also forgot to say that in murders like that where a group have participated they should ALL go down. To hell with this "I didn't deliver the fatal blow." crap. If there were five of them involved in kicking someone to death then they're all away for twenty.

Again, you're on shaky ground as far as the law is concerned. Following your line of thought, if I gave a bloke a bloody nose and then four others kicked him to death, I'd be sent down for 20 years.

Look, I can sympathise with your feelings. I don't like the violence around and believe it should be tackled. Let's be realistic though: every case on it's own merits, and no more talk of blanket 20 years for any case which results in a death. It's not that simple.

dws wrote:
Let's be realistic though: every case on it's own merits, and no more talk of blanket 20 years for any case which results in a death. It's not that simple.

Gosh, a PC PC

Seriously, I'd be worried if I was ever charged with a crime and some posters here were on the jury. Trying and sentencing isn't easy and nothing should ever be as simplistic as a one-sentence-fits-all approach to justice.

TLJ wrote:
Gosh, a PC PC

Less of the insults, you...I'm as PC as Gene Hunt!

Seriously, I'd be worried if I was ever charged with a crime and some posters here were on the jury. Trying and sentencing isn't easy and nothing should ever be as simplistic as a one-sentence-fits-all approach to justice.

Agreed, but I feel their pain, having to deal with the outcome. I'd bring back capital punishment, how P.C. is that?

Feel free to berate me for that opinion, but they would murder no more, what an effective deterrent.

dws wrote:
Clare wrote:
People have been kicked to death "spontaneously" on many occasions, particularly by groups. It is still cold blooded murder.

For "murder" intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Giving someone a kicking, while abhorrent, wouldn't neccessarily constitute intent to kill, unless you're talking about changing the law.
I also forgot to say that in murders like that where a group have participated they should ALL go down. To hell with this "I didn't deliver the fatal blow." crap. If there were five of them involved in kicking someone to death then they're all away for twenty.

Again, you're on shaky ground as far as the law is concerned. Following your line of thought, if I gave a bloke a bloody nose and then four others kicked him to death, I'd be sent down for 20 years.

Look, I can sympathise with your feelings. I don't like the violence around and believe it should be tackled. Let's be realistic though: every case on it's own merits, and no more talk of blanket 20 years for any case which results in a death. It's not that simple.

Yes I AM talking about changing the law. Completely.

From now on no more "We only meant to give him a good kicking, not to kill him." is out of the window. That is the whole point of drawing up the laws again and making it clear that if you participate in an incident where your violent actions lead to the death of another person then you are going away for a long time.

By introducing such laws you are indeed being simplistic and clear on the penalties but you are also making people THINK about the consequences of violence for them. That is the key to all of it. We have tolerated violence for far too long and shown no thought for those who died or were seriously injured as a result of it. We have handed down paltry sentences in response and introduced ludicrous early release policies which send out the wrong message. That is why we now have a blatant disregard for violence and its terrible consequences because it is seen as no big deal.

My mother used to say that in her day they actually followed murder cases in the paper, they were so rare. These days they are ten a penny because we have ceased to deal with the culprits. Instead we have a soft approach that makes the victim the only one who pays the price. Those who inflict the damage pay no price at all.

New laws will send out a new message and we will perhaps save some from choosing lives which involve violence as a matter of course. For they will know that from now on tougher penalties will take them out of circulation and keep them there for a long time. I think that will lead many to reconsider their way of life. It will also reassure the law abiding majority that someone, for a change, is looking out for us. Finally it will save lives. If I'm being simplistic it is for one reason only: its because it really is simple and we have made it too complicated.

TLJ wrote:
dws wrote:
Let's be realistic though: every case on it's own merits, and no more talk of blanket 20 years for any case which results in a death. It's not that simple.

Gosh, a PC PC

Seriously, I'd be worried if I was ever charged with a crime and some posters here were on the jury. Trying and sentencing isn't easy and nothing should ever be as simplistic as a one-sentence-fits-all approach to justice.

I didn't say one sentence fits all. I said where a killing is involved we can't continue handing out sentences of four years and less when a person is dead. I said we need to take on the situation now where people are almost literally getting away with murder. I also said that if we get new laws in making it clear the soft option days are over people will have to re think their ways when it comes to violence.

My brother's car was recently stopped by a man who was distraught, begging him to take him to Holmlea Road in Glasgow because "my boy's been stabbed." My brother took the man there at once. A crowd had gathered and police were already there. The man ran from the taxi and my brother remained in the car. Police wouldn't let the man through obviously. He told them who he was and my brother saw the police take the man to the side and speak to him during which he had to be supported. They were clearly telling him his son was dead. My brother said it was the first time he had ever seen someone literally wringing their hands in sheer grief. My brother was himself sat in his car crying his eyes out for that man whose son had not been involved in any of it, he was simply picked out at random by a gang for "a kicking" and I'm sure no one meant to kill him! He was celebrating his 18th birthday. THAT's the sort of scum we need to meet head on and deal with and that is the mentality we need to show we have had enough. When a person pays with their life qualifying the crime in the way we currently do is an insult. It is also the reason why so many don't care about what they do to others. They know the current penalties are nothing.

Clare wrote:
Yes I AM talking about changing the law. Completely.

Care to expand on that? Violent crime has a wide spectrum, If I wave a knife at you, I'm committing assault. If I spit at you (even if it doesn't land on you) I'm committing assault. How would you define common law assault, aggravated assault, assault with intent to kill, etc.?

From now on no more "We only meant to give him a good kicking, not to kill him." is out of the window. That is the whole point of drawing up the laws again and making it clear that if you participate in an incident where your violent actions lead to the death of another person then you are going away for a long time.

Say you caught a burglar in your house, and he threatened you. Presently you can use the minimum amount of force neccessary for self-defence. If you lost your temper and battered the shit out of him, would you equate your crime on the same level as someone beating someone up for their choice of football team, for example?

By introducing such laws you are indeed being simplistic and clear on the penalties but you are also making people THINK about the consequences of violence for them. That is the key to all of it.

No, it isn't. The whole point about such crimes are they are in the heat of the moment. You can't equate that with cold-blooded murder. What's your views on Crime passionelle? If your husband beat you for 20 years and you snapped, killing him, would you first think "I mustn't. I will go to jail for a long time." Of course you wouldn't...you've just lost your temper.
We have tolerated violence for far too long and shown no thought for those who died or were seriously injured as a result of it.
Agreed.
We have handed down paltry sentences in response and introduced ludicrous early release policies which send out the wrong message.
Again, agreed.
That is why we now have a blatant disregard for violence and its terrible consequences because it is seen as no big deal.
Disagreed. We haven't a disregard for it, we're scared of it and we don't know how to solve it.


Longer sentences, yes I can go for that. Bundling all violent crime together and locking everyone up, no...sorry.

"Crime passionelle? If your husband beat you for 20 years and you snapped, killing him, would you first think "I mustn't. I will go to jail for a long time." Of course you wouldn't...you've just lost your temper."

If my husband beat me for 20 years and I stayed and took it then I was the fool! If I waited until I "snapped" I've committed a murder and I do time and if I had a brain in the first place I'd have left after the first time he beat me. I then wouldn't have been "driven" to murder him.

The key is NOT to seek to justify any of it it is to say this is NEVER justified and we will not listen to excuses. It is to say if you do this the soft approach won't have you back on the streets in eighteen months because the soft approach is no more.

I'm not talking about assaults. I'm talking about KILLING people and engaging in activities which, whether intentional or not, lead to a person being killed.

I'm talking about a system which currently works for the criminal and not for the victim by allowing serious crimes which have resulted in the loss of a life to be plea-bargained down to something not very important. I'm talking about a justice system that delivers anything but justice.

The two main types of aggression are;

1. Affective - aggression as an emotional response to an aversive stimulus.

2. Instrumental - aggression as a strategy to achieve a tangible goal.

If the aggressive behaviour results in death the first would be considered a "crime of passion" and therefore not murder, while the second, even if death were not intended, would, in most countries, be considered to be a wrongful death in the pursuit of a crime and, therefore, murder. Or am I just talkin mince?