What do you think the sentence should be for murder?

[Dumbo18]

Obviously there are many different circumstances but after today’s sentencing for the awful crime committed I couldn’t help but feel anger when I seen the sentence - I feel this with most murder sentences. I’m going to get flamed on here but here it goes… I just don’t agree with rehabilitation for these sort of crimes, main reason being why the hell should they get that opportunity? Child murderers, multiple murderers, serial rapists - you’ve ruined countless lives so why should you get another chance at life? I know that’s a view most people don’t have but I feel strongly about it and don’t get me started about what sentence these monsters should be handed!

Make prisoners 'work for their keep' how?

Prisoners do have jobs in prison already.... what else are you proposing?

So you'd just kill them before you're sure?

Fine with how it is now and I will never support the death penalty. I don’t want society to stoop to the level of a murderer taking a life.

I now think this too.

If you are convicted of murder it should be a full life term with no chance of parole.

The opportunity for considering mitigating factors is when deciding on the distinction between manslaughter and murder.

If you are found guilty of murder you are the worse type of person and shouldn't get a second chance.

They should serve their entire sentence. I say this as a mother of a trans teenager who has been relentlessly bullied. And for all the gender critical folk, I used to agree with you, however as the saying goes, walk a mile in my shoes, then come and criticise me

Who do you think murders are? They are disproportionately black, disproportionately young, disproportionately abused, poor, disproportionately have learning disabilities, disproportionately low IQs, very often from the care system. They are the kids who waited five years for a camhs appt. I personally don't get off on wishing evil on abused kids with low IQs, and poor social skills from disadvantaged minority groups. But each to their own I suppose.

Brianna wasn't murdered for being trans, so the fact you are the mother of a trans teenager is neither here nor there.

I'm completely against the death penalty. If murder is wrong, how can state sanctioned murder be right?

I agree that removing the prospect of release at some point just creates dangerous individuals. There are measures in place that should stop the most dangerous offenders getting parole. I realise the system frequently gets it wrong. To me it's more important to focus on ensuring mistakes aren't made than locking up people who no longer pose a significant threat.

Death Penalty if there is 100% no doubt and by that I mean if the person was seen commiting the act of murder . There has been many cases where a stabbing or a shooting has been carried out in public and witnessed /filmed .

Life to mean life in very sparse conditions .

And as this is a "What If" sort of question if the prisoner convicted of murder chose to take a lethal dose of a toxin and end there own life by choice without co-ersion from other prisoners or authorities then I would not lose much in the way of sleep.

Brianna wasn't murdered for being trans, so the fact you are the mother of a trans teenager is neither here nor there

The news reports today said that Brianna was murdered for this reason.
I was watching BBC/ITV

Thank you @70isaLimitNotaTarget . I don't think I can have a reasonable discussion about this unfortunately. It's just too close to what my and my teenagers life is, day after day. But it's lovely to know there is some decent people out there

Beyond reasonable doubt (BRD) is the standard in this country for them to be convicted of murder/serial rape/etc.

For a capital punishment sentence I would have the instructions to the judges with their years of experience not only do they have to have the jury obviously come back with a BRD guilty verdict that the judge themselves after listening to all the evidence in their mind they have weighed it up and judged that in their opinion the conviction is secure enough for a CP sentence.

We have judges for a reason, let them judge after a jury has also convicted or a guilty plea was entered and the judge judges the sentence is suitable.

Ooh, the evil bastard's killed someone and that is wrong. How shall we punish him? I know, let's kill him!

Does not compute in my mind.

Agreed. Of course there are some people who should never be released but it would be dangerous to bang up every murderer and keep them incarcerated until they die.

It's amazing how many Boden-wearing Prosecco-swilling yummy mummies turn up on these threads declaring that they'd "happily pull the lever". Course you would, Helen 😂 don't give up your day job just yet.

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?

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.

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

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!

This is so dark but you are probably right.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.