MovieChat Forums > Trial & Retribution (1997) Discussion > When and why exactly did the British jus...

When and why exactly did the British justice system go crazy stupid?

posted 11 years ago by pammahl
6 replies | jump to latest

Assuming that the sentences that the convicted murderers receive in the series accurately reflect those that are imposed in Britain in real life, I wonder whether Britons generally accept that these ten- or fifteen-year terms represent just punishments for the savage acts committed by the characters in the series as well as by real-life criminals.

In the U.S., convicted first-degree murderers typically get prison sentences upwards of 30 years or life with no parole possible, or the death penalty. To American sensibilities, this is equitable justice being meted out to those most wicked and sadistic barbarians who giddily and wantonly rape, torture, and snuff the life out of innocent people.

[–] david_kravitz 11 years ago

The idea of prison is to rehabilitate and the UK does not have the barbaric death sentence (legal murder). It is rare that a murderer reoffends, most are committed by someone the victim knew. Less reoffend than are subsequently found innocent by a miscarriage of justice.

12-14 years is still a long time and if the sentencing judge believes the murderer merits more (up to full life) that is what he/she gets.

No, the UK and USA are different, especially the right to bear arms which is crass.

[–] pammahl 11 years ago

"It is rare that a murderer reoffends . . ." - LAUGHABLY ABSURD! I don't know from which orifice you pulled that "fact."

The idea of prison to "rehabilitate" is a foolish one from a bygone era. The enormity of its cost in the lives and well-being of innocent people is hideous to think of. "Rehabilitation" has never worked in a general sense and has led to vastly more victims of violence inside and outside of prison. Inadequate consequences for savage crimes is one of the main causes of the rampant sociopathy today that manifests itself when innocents are brutalized.

The primary purpose of any sentence in a criminal proceeding is to mete out justice by way of punishment - not to "help" those who brutalize others. Another purpose is to deter crime, despite the continual caterwauling by some that harsh penalties do not deter. No one can argue that the death penalty is not a 100% deterrent to the dead criminal. THAT beast will never savage another innocent person again. The offenders that merit death usually have already murdered before or murdered multiple victims.

Do you not understand the distinction between the meanings of "murder" and "kill?" To call the death penalty "murder" is as utterly childish as calling a self-defense killing "murder." Of course, to your way of thinking, self defense is probably "murder" too, since you want law-abiding people to be defenseless in the face of serial rapists and murderers. I call that crass, not the right to bear arms.

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

@panmahl

That actually isn't true about rehabilitation not working---it depends on how it's applied and where, and for whom (I'm mainly referring to the U.S. justice system here.) And that whole "lock 'em up and throw away the key" attitude hasn't always worked either----look up how may first-time offenders caught with sometimes barely a gram or so of crack or cocaine ended spending way more time in jail out of proportion to their crimes during the war on drugs in the '80s and '90s and the devastating long-term effects it had on black and brown communities. Check out a really good documentary called THE HOUSE I LIVE IN which goes in to major detail about that particular subject. Now when it comes to rapists and murderers, especially repeat offenders of those crimes, hell, yeah, they deserve to be locked the hell up,period---no argument there. And there's also the fact that innocent people do end up trapped in the system because they don't have access to or can't afford good legal help/assistance. There's been many cases recently where a person who was finally let out of prison after 15 or 20 years when it was found that either the evidence against them was questionable, the witnesses recant their testimony, or that there was never enough evidence beyond a doubt to prove that they committed the crime of which they were accused. So, it's not always as simple and black and white, I'm afraid.

[–] tonyclapson 10 years ago

A large majority of the UK population do not agree with the way our murderers are dealt with, they would prefer them to be executed. To say that it is rare for killers to kill again after release is unbelievable, on average, one person a fortnight in the UK is killed by a repeat offender. It's a strange world when people are less concerned about their loss of life than of the murderers. Anybody that describes execution as murder needs to have a long look at themselves in the mirror, they have serious issues. Maybe if they lose a loved one in this way they might wake up to reality.

[–] garyedgecombe 10 years ago

Most British people are unhappy with the kind of tariffs handed down by our judges in murder cases, indeed many of us want the death penalty reintroduced. Whole life sentences are now becoming more common..largely due to public pressure, but our Government refuses us a referendum on hanging because they know beforehand what a public vote would be! The UK wouldn't be allowed to start hanging again in any case...part of EU membership forbids ANY member state from having..or introducing the death penalty. It's a pity, despite those who say it's no deterrant to a would be murderer..hanging does make the punishment fit the crime. In addition, and i stand to be corrected on this...as far as i'm aware there is NO recorded case of an executed murderer reoffending!!

[–] stomperrob 9 years ago

I see that the EU is even protesting the UK's whole life sentences as inhumane and demanding they be abolished - so far their protests have fallen on deaf ears. There are some so dangerous that they should never be allowed to walk free again ever.