Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Should a murderer get a whole-life sentence?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
richmowil
richmowil e2 Member 5240 forum postsrichmowil vcard England1 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jul 2013 - 10:47 PM


Quote: What the hell has this got to do with photography?!

Not a lot!!

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
9 Jul 2013 - 10:47 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Newdevonian
9 Jul 2013 - 10:49 PM


Quote: What the hell has this got to do with photography?!

Regard it as a snapshot into this weird system we live in.

answersonapostcard
answersonapostcard Site Moderator 1012491 forum postsanswersonapostcard vcard United Kingdom15 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jul 2013 - 10:50 PM

Its in 'Healthy Debate' so other topics other than photography are quite ok. Grin

MODERATOR POST
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1214388 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jul 2013 - 11:18 PM


Quote: Should a potential victim's human rights be considered when a killer, known to be dangerous, is released?

Known to be dangerous when convicted or known to be dangerous when released, there is a difference.

thewilliam
9 Jul 2013 - 11:23 PM

In the USA, they sometimes give 999 year prison sentences. This is very sensible because the offender will be eligible for parole when 10% of the sentence has been served.

Could a UK judge now impose a 99 year tariff? This will give the required "hope of release!

thewilliam
9 Jul 2013 - 11:24 PM


Quote: Its in 'Healthy Debate' so other topics other than photography are quite ok. Grin

I thought this was the right topic for an argument and it's been quiet for too long!

Last Modified By thewilliam at 9 Jul 2013 - 11:24 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1214388 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jul 2013 - 11:28 PM


Quote: In the USA, they sometimes give 999 year prison sentences. This is very sensible because the offender will be eligible for parole when 10% of the sentence has been served

Anyone see the Trevor Mcdonald series on American Prisons Smile

cathal
cathal  9492 forum posts Ireland4 Constructive Critique Points
9 Jul 2013 - 11:51 PM

The EU and the ECHR are not the same thing, as has been posted already. However, membership of the EU now requires the member state to sign up to the ECHR.

This ruling though, really is an argument about semantics. Previously, a whole life tariff couldn't be reviewed. Now, if the government accepts the ruling, it can be. Review doesn't mean change, (as people with annual salary reviews will tell you!) and I would doubt if any of those incarcerated under a whole life tariff will see any difference in their treatment or sentencing.

As has been said earlier... storm in a teacup!

llareggub
llareggub  3638 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 6:43 AM

Absolute storm in a teacup that means nothing other than a procedural difference in the way that sentences are administrated!

The one thing that I feel very strongly about is the influence of victims in the legal process, I believe there is no room for it in any way shape or form... I believe law should be objective and above petty 'restorative justive' and as far as I am concerned the length of a jail sentence should reflect the risk an offender presents to the public, where as most victims want the perpetrator of ay crime to 'go down' forever.

lemmy
lemmy  61673 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 7:40 AM


Quote: the length of a jail sentence should reflect the risk an offender presents to the public

Administration of justice has always incorporated an element of punishment as well as protective custody, which I understand that your point of view would reject.

But in many cases the perpetrator of a crime is and never was a danger to the public. For example, a man murders his wife for infidelity. He is himself shocked and sorry for what he has done. He represents no danger to the public at large and since his wife is dead, he can be no further danger to her. There have been many cases where the judges have acknowledged these factors.

In your system would this man walk free? He poses no danger to the public and never did, so only a lack of jail would reflect his risk to the public (that is, none).

While I understand that point of view, it rests uneasily that such a man will be punished by a fine or community service in the same way as a shoplifter or a careless driver.

lemmy
lemmy  61673 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 7:52 AM


Quote: What the hell has this got to do with photography?!

gingerdougie, I don't understand that remark. What does this forum's title 'General - For Off Topic Discussions/Healthy Debate' mean to you? If you are in doubt, see below from the Read First! Announcement thread from ePZ staff memeber David Burleson at the head of this forum

>
Welcome to the Healthy Debate forum on ePHOTOzine.

This forum is intended to be used for discussion of current affairs and non photography issues.
<

mikehit
mikehit e2 Member 45766 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
10 Jul 2013 - 7:54 AM

He should be jailed, certainly. But in all cases of murder (including the example you quoted) he still has a life sentence but is released 'on license'. This means he can be recalled to prison at any time in his life and for any reason whatsoever, though in practice it is usually done if he commits another crime. This is what happened with the highly publicised ohn Venables case.
A lot of judges are uncomfortable with the idea that a 'crime of passion' such as this should get an automatic life sentence, and there are calls for 'grades' of murder as there are in the US.

llareggub
llareggub  3638 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 8:07 AM


Quote: the length of a jail sentence should reflect the risk an offender presents to the public

Administration of justice has always incorporated an element of punishment as well as protective custody, which I understand that your point of view would reject.

But in many cases the perpetrator of a crime is and never was a danger to the public. For example, a man murders his wife for infidelity. He is himself shocked and sorry for what he has done. He represents no danger to the public at large and since his wife is dead, he can be no further danger to her. There have been many cases where the judges have acknowledged these factors.

In your system would this man walk free? He poses no danger to the public and never did, so only a lack of jail would reflect his risk to the public (that is, none).

While I understand that point of view, it rests uneasily that such a man will be punished by a fine or community service in the same way as a shoplifter or a careless driver.

Largely I have little problem with that in principle however the example is a little off the mark, I would personally argue that a man who murders his wife as a result of infidelity is most definitely a risk to the public... It is an act of barbarism that by far exceeds an 'expected' reaction to an act that, whilst distasteful, is a fact of human existence and always will be!

She slept with someone else, he pranged my car, she cut me up at the lights, he looked at my pint are all instances where violence is an over reaction to the situation and as such an act of violence says a great deal about the person committing the act of violence.

That is how I would view it.

kodachrome
10 Jul 2013 - 8:44 AM

Quite so, in retrospect I don't think it was a good idea to raise this subject on a photographic forum. Admin should have edited this.

llareggub
llareggub  3638 forum posts United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 - 8:50 AM


Quote: Quite so, in retrospect I don't think it was a good idea to raise this subject on a photographic forum. Admin should have edited this.

Why it is in the healthy debate, 'miscellaneous' section of the website and any discussions have been respectful and in a tone that does nothing to damage the reputation of the website???

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.