What do you think the sentence should be for murder?

Just realised I misunderstood the sentence my friends murderer got, anyway I think it's too soon for me to be objective.

Semantics. If a 'minimum' of 19 years, and let's be honest most don't serve their full sentence, is sufficient after taking someone else's life deliberately then we have a broken system.

... As for the murder thing, I think it depends in the circumstances, I absolutely do not believe in the death penalty but do believe that life should mean life behind bars and being properly punished, not able to earn money from royalties for example!

It depends on the circumstances surely?

I do believe that some can be rehabilitated. However I do believe in the death penalty for the most violent of criminals/ serial killers and child sex offenders.
I don’t see the value of paying so much to keep people locked up for the rest of their lives.

If we had the death penalty ( proven by DNA) we'd have a lot more room for people to be put in prison for smaller crimes ( may end up being a deterrent for them) also the streets would be safer.

Agree with this. We had 2 young lads where I live knocked off his bike by a drunk driver. She removed one of their bikes from under her car. Left them for dead and carried on to work in a care role. 1 survived unfortunately the other didn't make it. She served 4 years and made friends with a woman who murdered her children

I hate that they run sentences along side each other.

In which case they have made a mistake and should change it back, as being 100% is something you can very very rarely meet as it means there is no other possibility. No wonder conviction rates are so low.

@OpalOrchid i would give them and injection or better still the electric chair.

Agree with @SavingEveryLastPenny

Death sentence If proven by DNA. X

The way I see this is that the sentence is to prevent the criminals killing again. If they are behind bars they are not killing innocent people. Life sentences for most murderers is probably the best. Depends on the circumstances of course. Some definitely deserve to die and it would be better for society if they are given the death sentence. However, it would never happened here.

I wish that prison wasn't such a bloody holiday camp and that there were better deterrents and reeducation/support to keep people from reoffending over minor offences.

Life for a life thats How it should be to many people killing people and the age is now just getting younger hear about 11-16 17 year old stabbing people it’s not right

I don’t believe it’s that simple. I think murder is a spectrum and every case should be heard on its merits. I’m not in UK, but here over 95% of women imprisoned for murder are subject to long standing domestic violence prior to the murder of the domestic abuser. It’s no good saying, she should just leave him, that often doesn’t work. Men will threaten to kill/hurt kids they will get part-time custody of as punishment if the woman leaves. Also many women here are killed after leaving men and getting restraining orders. It means nothing to men who breach the orders and seriously hurt or kill the women. Most of these women murder the abuser as an absolute last step out of sheer desperation, and often to keep the kids safe. Most of them get life sentences (20 years). I think that’s every bit as outrageous as the paltry sentences some murderers get when they do it simply for the thrill or because they are psycho’s.

There isn't.
Beyond reasonable doubt and 'sure' are the same thing.
Judges have been told to stop using the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' because it causes confusion, and if they do use it they have to clarify that it means being sure.

Bollocks. Their brains are developed enough to know it’s wrong to murder someone. Also see Jamie Bulger’s killers. Some people are just sadistic fucks who shouldn’t be released.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, beyond reasonable doubt is a different standard to being sure.

For instance, police called to a house after neighbours hear shouting and find dead person on the floor with knife wounds. Second person known the police for domestic abuse standing there covered in blood, forensics say blood is from being close to person when they were stabbed, figerprints on knife covered in blood. shadow on blood on wall same size/shape as the person. They plead not guilty and say a 3rd party did it but there is no evidence of 3rd party. I think any jury in the country would say this is beyond reasonable doubt ... but there is the possibility of a 3rd party.

However police have a video recording of the from a home security system showing person 2 stabbing person 1. That is the difference between reasonable doubt and being sure.

I think it depends on the context tbh. For instance, if a woman plans and commits pre-meditated murder of her spouse, but her spouse has been a perpetrator of significant domestic violence for years, does she really deserve the same sentence as the likes of people like Ted Bundy? I could certainly never believe so.

Serial killers- life should mean life. Or in a secure forensic setting for life for people who have severe mental health issues that cause them to commit violence. To use people like Ted Bundy again as an example, I'm personally not morally against the death penalty in these scenarios. It's not possible to rehabilitate some people. One could argue it's more inhumane to deprive someone of their liberty for a lifetime instead of ending it peacefully for them. Honestly though, I just don't think people like that deserve to live personally.

Child killers/offending paedophiles. Absolutely life. Most paedophiles reoffend.

I think in the case of children who committ murder, it's really important to consider background. A 12 year old who attacks someone because they've been raised in chaos and have only ever experienced abuse and violence themselves can't really be treated the same way as an adult. I'm not saying they shouldn't get a long long sentence because violence in childhood is a big predictor for violence in adulthood, however I just think it needs treating with more empathy with psychological support and rehabilitation in mind.

But anyway. I largely think a lot of violent offenders with repeat offending patterns should be locked away for life as they are not safe to exist in society. There is a difference between brutal and significant abuse and murder, and repeat re-offending, than things like one-off crimes of passion, drunken fights gone very wrong etc.

20 years for a child seems a huge part of their lives, try thinking back 20 years then all you’ve covered in that time, it’s a very long time. Their brains aren’t fully developed yet, awful as their crimes are I think it needs reviewing much sooner and seeing how they have developed in say a decade and what risk they pose.

The news reports today said that Brianna was murdered for this reason.

It was given as a secondary motive. It comes from dehumanising comments the boy made, but the girl was the prime mover in terms of the motivation to murder, which is reflected in the longer sentence she got. I listened to the judge pass sentence on both the defendants, and your presentation of it is a simplistic, biased view.

People saying that in cases where there is "irrefutable evidence" or where there is no doubt, the punishment should be the death penalty - how does that work in practice? A jury decides that someone is guilty beyond easonable doubt. Is the judge then expected to announce some sort of extra, second verdict? These people are absolutely definitely guilty so can be executed, but those people are only highly likely to be guilty and might turn out to be innocent so we can't execute them?

You can't have a justice system with different levels of guilty. If there is any reasonable doubt the person has to go free. Beyond reasonable doubt, all punishments possible, including the death penalty if the country has it. (I don't actually believe in the death penalty, but if people insist we must bring if back we can't be deeming some people more gullty than others, and some people guilty but not guilty enough.)

This is so dark but you are probably right.

There would be plenty of people out there willing to do the job though so it's not like the MNs in favour of it who wouldn't do it themselves are trying to make another unwilling person do it. I guarantee if the job went up tomorrow there would be plenty of applicants!

Oh. Have you ever heard of Singapore, Bahrain, etc.

Oh. So the murder rate in US states with the death penalty is really low, is it?

And no, I don't think all murderers should be incarcerated until they die.

You're lucky this comes easily to you and I'm not that evolved, my gut says a life for a life especially in the case of heinous crimes against children.
What has society got to gain in protecting such perpetrators?
We're always told the death penalty isn't a deterrent and I don't believe that at all, see crimes rates in countries with a very harsh punishment regime.
However there's always the hideous nag of a miscarriage of justice.
Could we agree on incarceration until end of life then?