On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

Bevan

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

It is a matter of fact. Just because people disagree with facts does
not prevent them being facts. "Many millions" (as you seem to be
working on a worldwide basis) would gladly want to kill you for a
number of imaginary reasons but that is the end of a very long road
down which the majority of people closer to home do not wish to go.

On 29/12/2011 21:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

It is a matter of fact. Just because people disagree with facts does
not prevent them being facts.


Incorrect. It is not "Fact", it is your opinion (which you are entitled
to, and which may shared by others.). Many other people feel that
murderers should forfeit the right to freedom for as long as they live.
Indeed, many (non-legal types) thought that was what was going to happen
when hanging was abolished.

(OT) - As I think you imply, some people might like murderers to be
executed. If justice were perfect, I might agree with them. However
google "Timothy Evans" to see why I would oppose the return of a death
penalty. Justice is imperfect, sometimes the police & courts are
defective or incompetent. At least someone in prison can be released &
compensated if they are subsequently found to be innocent.

Bevan

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:35:22 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 21:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:

I would suggest that the law needs to be changed so that cable thieves
can be charged with "sabotage& endangering safety of rail passengers",
rather than theft, with severe minimum penalties specified by law, such
that some namby-pamby do-gooder could not reduce to a token level of
sentence. Dodgy scrap dealers should also face similarly severe charges
& penalties.

Bevan

No need for that. Theft carries a maximum penalty of 7 years,
handling even more. When did you see anyone, let alone these scroats,
get anywhere near these sorts of tariff.


George


I think that plain "theft" is not severe enough. Something like wilful
sabotage deserves a lot more than 7 years to punish offenders and deter
others. More like 20 years minimum would be my suggestion.

"Section 33 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - note the intent to
injure or endanger the safety of persons on railways must be present.
The offence carries, on conviction, [a maximum penalty of?**] life
imprisonment;"
[http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/r...ort_offences/]

(**AFAIAA murder is the only offence for which only a life sentence is
available.)

The same maximum penalty applies in Scotland for the Common Law
offence of culpable and reckless conduct.

(And before anyone suggests you get less for murder, I think murderers
should get 100 years without remission. )

They all get "life" but not necessarily/usually in the form of
lifelong incarceration. The circumstances vary greatly between cases
and locking people up for ever is seldom appropriate.

That is a matter of personal opinion. I suspect that many millions would
disagree with you.

It is a matter of fact. Just because people disagree with facts does
not prevent them being facts.


Incorrect. It is not "Fact", it is your opinion

So the rules for the application of life sentences are a consequence
of my opinion ?

All murders are the same ?

I think not and I doubt if anyone else does.

(which you are entitled
to, and which may shared by others.). Many other people feel that
murderers should forfeit the right to freedom for as long as they live.

Some should and do. Many others are the perpetrators of a serious
mistake, a moment's loss of control which does not get repeated or
have been provoked beyond reasonable endurance into the act; one-off
events which, while offensive to society, do not harm the general
public and do not require the ongoing protection of others.

Indeed, many (non-legal types) thought that was what was going to happen
when hanging was abolished.

Many thought the homicide rate would double, they were wrong.

(OT) - As I think you imply, some people might like murderers to be
executed. If justice were perfect, I might agree with them. However
google "Timothy Evans" to see why I would oppose the return of a death
penalty. Justice is imperfect, sometimes the police & courts are
defective or incompetent. At least someone in prison can be released &
compensated if they are subsequently found to be innocent.

Agreed.

On 29/12/2011 23:20, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 22:35:22 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 29/12/2011 21:27, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:37:06 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 20:01, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 19:10:07 +0000, Bevan Price
wrote:

On 28/12/2011 17:01, furnessvale wrote:
On Dec 28, 4:36 pm, Bevan wrote:



I think not and I doubt if anyone else does.

(which you are entitled
to, and which may shared by others.). Many other people feel that
murderers should forfeit the right to freedom for as long as they live.

Some should and do. Many others are the perpetrators of a serious
mistake, a moment's loss of control which does not get repeated or
have been provoked beyond reasonable endurance into the act; one-off
events which, while offensive to society, do not harm the general
public and do not require the ongoing protection of others.


I concede that there is a case for different classes / degrees of murder
charge, but conviction under the most serious (first degree) charge
should always lead to a full-life sentence. This would include killing
whilst performing robbery or other serious crime, killing with
explosives, killing more than one person, etc. Should they ever be
identified (unlikely after nearly 50 years), this would also include the
Elm Park Murderer(s), who killed two people by putting metal objects on
the railway, derailing a train. 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.

Bevan

On Dec 30, 6:29*pm, Bevan Price 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

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.


Bevan

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: