When 'are' we going to get tough on crime?

[motorbiking]

Didn't it used to be a year and a day? Maybe that was just Hollywood.

no it was a real thing. Now 3 years and a day, without specific approval.

Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Act 1996

An Act to abolish the “year and a day rule” and, in consequence of its abolition, to impose a restriction on the institution in certain circumstances of proceedings for a fatal offence.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[diy_fun_uk]

The logical extension of your argument is that a) you have the death penalty for every offence

Don't be silly.

 

[blup]

Don't be silly.

People used to served 7 or 8 years for murder back in the day. An offence like this one would have been treated quite differently, probably as youthful high jinks gone wrong. Six years in the nick is a long time, they we I’ll emerge as angry hardened criminals

 

[aveatry]

National service?

No thanks - why would you want to train nutters to peak fitness and how to kill

 

[blup]

No thanks - why would you want to train nutters to peak fitness and how to kill

Not just for those two

 

[Ihavenojob]

People used to served 7 or 8 years for murder back in the day. An offence like this one would have been treated quite differently, probably as youthful high jinks gone wrong. Six years in the nick is a long time, they we I’ll emerge as angry hardened criminals

Armed robbery used to carry a life sentence. Is robbing someone at knifepoint armed robbery? It is in my book.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

People used to served 7 or 8 years for murder back in the day. An offence like this one would have been treated quite differently, probably as youthful high jinks gone wrong. Six years in the nick is a long time, they we I’ll emerge as angry hardened criminals

It depends on the crime.

We see people drunk, high, driving without insurance, driving at 70 in a 30 zone, knocking someone over and killing them. They might get ~6 years in prison.

Does that sentence fit the crime?

I'd assert no, appears as though an increasing number think yes, which is concerning.

 

[noseall]

I missed that. I don't see why its not murder then.

There seems to have been a discount for the fact that they are f*cktards.

Perhaps they are liars too.

 

[Deluks]

National service?

Nah, they'll still misbehave, and they'll still have a lenient sentence.

Soldiers who killed tour guide are freed

All three former British soldiers jailed for life after raping and killing a Danish tour guide in Cyprus in 1994 will be out of prison in the next few days, British and Cypriot officials said yesterday.

www.theguardian.com

 

[blup]

It depends on the crime.

We see people drunk, high, driving without insurance, driving at 70 in a 30 zone, knocking someone over and killing them. They might get ~6 years in prison.

You can make the tiniest mistake driving and kill someone.

Does that sentence fit the crime?

I'd assert no, appears as though an increasing number think yes, which is concerning.

My point is that a sentence will never be high enough if you are directly affected. Do we turn into Sowdi and chop hands off or allow compensation to atone for the crime?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

You can make the tiniest mistake driving and kill someone.

Are you trolling?

There is obviously a world of difference between a driver complying with the law having a genuine accident (and killing someone) compared to someone as per my #22 post.

 

[motorbiking]

The point he is making is that we should punish according to the criminal intent.

e.g. attempted murder = life
death by driving without due care = suspended sentence.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

The point he is making is that we should punish according to the criminal intent.

e.g. attempted murder = life
death by driving without due care = suspended sentence.

Yeah makes sense.

Look Mrs Jones, we know he killed your 5 year old son, however although he was drunk, high, doing 70 in a 30, driving a car without insurance, he didn't intend to kill your son. Therefore he's been given a slap on the wrist and has promised not to do it again. Longer prison sentences don't stop the crime numbers Mrs Jones, so we're essentially letting 'em out early or locking 'em up for less time.

 

[blup]

Are you trolling?

There is obviously a world of difference between a driver complying with the law having a genuine accident (and killing someone) compared to someone as per my #22 post.

No, I'm making n argument you dont understand. If you drive drunk and point your car at somebody with the intention of mowing them down, that's still murder. If you drive home slightly over the limit and knock someone off their bike it's not. There may be a moral case for equating the two but that hasn't happened yet. Tougher sentences and tariffs cover a lot of the practical consequences of both scenarios.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

No, I'm making n argument you dont understand. If you drive drunk and point your car at somebody with the intention of mowing them down, that's still murder. If you drive home slightly over the limit and knock someone off their bike it's not. There may be a moral case for equating the two but that hasn't happened yet. Tougher sentences and tariffs cover a lot of the practical consequences of both scenarios.

Sorry, it's you who is misunderstanding.

I'm not suggesting there is a default sentence for all crimes of a certain type, of course there are differing circumstances some of which will be mitigating. My point, which you seem determined to pivot from and/or ignore, is we have people committing serious crimes and getting relatively lenient sentences. If you want to assert that doesn't happen, fine, your opinion.