In message
, ian
batten wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't.

Nitpick: the mens rea for a murder charge is to kill or commit grievous
bodily harm.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

furnessvale wrote:
I have never read the daily wail in my life but I did serve as a
police officer for more than 20 years. I never saw anyone get the
maximum for any offence (mandatory life for murder excepted). Some
of
the offences I dealt with were truly horrific and I often wondered
just what a villain had to do to get the maximum. Then of course
remission, release on licence etc kicks in to reduce things even
more.


Is there any conclusive evidence that longer sentences result in a
lower crime rate? Countries in mainland Europe that have low crime
rates seem to have much shorter prison sentences than the UK and a
greater reliance on community sentences.

On the other hand, the USA seems to lock people up for much longer,
with a crime rate that - gun crime apart - is much lower than the
UK's. That would seem to support your view, but whether we could
afford the considerably higher cost of prisons is moot.

"Peter Masson" wrote:
What is the point of long prison sentences? Right, there is a small
number
of criminals who are so dangerous that they have to be locked up
for many
years, perhaps life, for public protection. But for most, if the
sentence
involved intensive education, training, and therapy to address
criminal
behaviour, nothing more will be achieved after about three years,
so it's a
waste of taxpayers' money to lock them up for longer. It's no use
arguing
that long sentences are a deterrent - criminals aren't deterred by
prison,
and the people who are deterred by prison wouldn't dream of
committing
crimes anyway.


Long sentences might be a deterrent if more offenders were caught and
prosecuted. Police clear-up rates are pathetically low - the
Metropolitan Police managed only 16% in recent figures, down from the
low 20s several years ago.

When 84% get off scot-free, the length of the sentence for the 16%
who get caught and prosecuted is almost irrelevant.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:34:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 18:41, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:29 pm, Bevan wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

ian

Trying to be too brief led to confusion. I meant the "We didn't intend
to kill anyone" comment to apply mainly to cases like the Elm Park train
"murders". Deliberately damaging railways (for example) is reckless,
dangerous behaviour, which all rational people ought to realise might
have fatal consequences.

"Ought to realise" does not constitute intent. It very likely hints
that recklessness is present but that again is not intent.

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:33:00 -0000, "Peter Masson"
wrote:



"MB" wrote

The attacker was charged with a long list of offences, found guilt of them
all and given long sentences for each one to be served consecutively.

The local reporter was unsure of the total sentence so rang the judge who
was also unsure and had to get out a piece of paper to total them all up!
I think it was about 70+ years so the offender would be about 100 before
he would be able to ask for release.

When I read this I wondered about what would happen in the UK. There
would be one charge and quite possibly not the most serious one. He might
get "life" but there seemed a good chance he would be out in 10 to 15
years.

What is the point of long prison sentences? Right, there is a small number
of criminals who are so dangerous that they have to be locked up for many
years, perhaps life, for public protection.

The reason that e.g. lifelong restriction orders and whole life
tariffs were invented in more recent times.

But for most, if the sentence
involved intensive education, training, and therapy to address criminal
behaviour, nothing more will be achieved after about three years, so it's a
waste of taxpayers' money to lock them up for longer. It's no use arguing
that long sentences are a deterrent - criminals aren't deterred by prison,
and the people who are deterred by prison wouldn't dream of committing
crimes anyway.

OTOH, what's the point of short prison sentences (under a year)? They cost a
lot of taxpayers' money, and don't achieve anything.

Peter

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:44:25 -0500, Bruce
wrote:

"Peter Masson" wrote:
What is the point of long prison sentences? Right, there is a small
number
of criminals who are so dangerous that they have to be locked up
for many
years, perhaps life, for public protection. But for most, if the
sentence
involved intensive education, training, and therapy to address
criminal
behaviour, nothing more will be achieved after about three years,
so it's a
waste of taxpayers' money to lock them up for longer. It's no use
arguing
that long sentences are a deterrent - criminals aren't deterred by
prison,
and the people who are deterred by prison wouldn't dream of
committing
crimes anyway.


Long sentences might be a deterrent if more offenders were caught and
prosecuted. Police clear-up rates are pathetically low - the
Metropolitan Police managed only 16% in recent figures, down from the
low 20s several years ago.

That figure possibly makes insufficient sense when not subdivided by
offences. Many more minor offences will be doomed to non-clearance for
a number of practical reasons, possibly mostly a lack of usable
evidence (or any evidence at all sometimes, know what I mean [TM).
Some will also have unrecorded clearups by the offenders being nicked
for something else later. I suspect the same applies to some extent
with other metropolitan areas.

When 84% get off scot-free, the length of the sentence for the 16%
who get caught and prosecuted is almost irrelevant.

In article ,
(Charles Ellson) wrote:

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 22:34:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 30/12/2011 18:41, ian batten wrote:
On Dec 30, 6:29 pm, Bevan wrote:
The classic excuse "but we didn't intend
to kill anyone" should be debarred as a means of seeking conviction
under a lesser charge such as manslaughter.

But "we didn't intend to kill anyone" is pretty much the definition of
manslaughter: murder requires mens rea, manslaughter doesn't. Not
permitting that defence turns almost all manslaughter cases into
murder. In which case, packing your bag whilst driving through red
signals on a train where the ATC has been isolated becomes murder.

Trying to be too brief led to confusion. I meant the "We didn't intend
to kill anyone" comment to apply mainly to cases like the Elm Park train
"murders". Deliberately damaging railways (for example) is reckless,
dangerous behaviour, which all rational people ought to realise might
have fatal consequences.

"Ought to realise" does not constitute intent. It very likely hints
that recklessness is present but that again is not intent.

Murder is one of the few crimes where recklessness is not sufficient intent.
But the intent only has to be to cause at least GBH so there may be no
intention actually to kill.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 30/12/2011 22:33, Peter Masson wrote:


What is the point of long prison sentences? Right, there is a small
number of criminals who are so dangerous that they have to be locked up
for many years, perhaps life, for public protection. But for most, if
the sentence involved intensive education, training, and therapy to
address criminal behaviour, nothing more will be achieved after about
three years, so it's a waste of taxpayers' money to lock them up for
longer. It's no use arguing that long sentences are a deterrent -
criminals aren't deterred by prison, and the people who are deterred by
prison wouldn't dream of committing crimes anyway.

OTOH, what's the point of short prison sentences (under a year)? They
cost a lot of taxpayers' money, and don't achieve anything.

Peter

Normally people don't commit any other crimes (except against other
prisoners) whilst in prison.

There were reports in many papers last week of the thousands of violent
attacks by criminals released on police cautions rather than sent to prison.

I know also that if someone stole my car and trashed it I would feel a
lot better knowing that they were going to serve a long sentence rather
than get a police caution.

On 31/12/2011 01:44, Bruce wrote:



Long sentences might be a deterrent if more offenders were caught and
prosecuted. Police clear-up rates are pathetically low - the
Metropolitan Police managed only 16% in recent figures, down from the
low 20s several years ago.

When 84% get off scot-free, the length of the sentence for the 16% who
get caught and prosecuted is almost irrelevant.

Is that 84% of criminals not caught or 84% of crimes not solved, I
presume many criminals will be committing many offences.

If more criminals were given longer sentences then there would be not as
many out there committing offences.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:44:25 -0500, Bruce
wrote:
Long sentences might be a deterrent if more offenders were caught
and
prosecuted. Police clear-up rates are pathetically low - the
Metropolitan Police managed only 16% in recent figures, down from
the
low 20s several years ago.

That figure possibly makes insufficient sense when not subdivided by
offences. Many more minor offences will be doomed to non-clearance
for
a number of practical reasons, possibly mostly a lack of usable
evidence (or any evidence at all sometimes, know what I mean [TM).
Some will also have unrecorded clearups by the offenders being
nicked
for something else later. I suspect the same applies to some extent
with other metropolitan areas.


Like any such statistics, the figures will be massaged. But they
will be massaged UP, not down. So the true picture is probably even
worse.

Add to the mix the fact that the police appear keen not even to
register what they consider as relatively minor offences, including
some vehicle and burglary offences, and the picture looks grim
indeed.

So I repeat, if at least 84% of offences don't get cleared up, what
possible deterrent effect would longer sentences offer?