Criticisms and reforms or murder and manslaughter

The purpose of this report is to discuss the matter The Queen V Bayley, which took place on the 29th of September 2012. Adrian bailey (serial rapist) was found guilty on charges of murder and rape, this report will discuss in detail the court proceedings that lead up to the imprisonment of Adrian Bayley and also the events prior to the kidnapping of Jill Meagher. The purpose of this report is to discuss the purpose of law in our society and how it applies to people who commit crimes in our community. As well as the purpose of criminal law in our community.

The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective

Capital Punishment was abolished “under Harold Wilson’s Labour government in 1969” (Manton.K, 2011, P.16) in the United Kingdom, but there have been continuing debates concerning the reinstatement of the death penalty in the UK.(BBC NEWS, 2011) reports that the Conservative party MP calls for submission on capital punishment in the UK. The Brigg and Goole MP “is one of a number of Tory backbenchers calling for a commons debate of the return of capital punishment.”(BBC NEWS, 5th August 2011) Currently, Paul Staines, who writes the Guido Fawkes ‘ calls for the death to be brought back for child and police officer murderers,” he carried out a public opinion poll, which recommends that around half the population want capital punishment to be reinstated for murders ‘ this rises to 60% when it comes to child or police officer kills’, furthermore his e-petition on the government website needs ‘100,000 people to support’ it so that there could possibly be a preliminary debate on the issue (BBC NEWS, 4th August 2011). As Mr. Staines statistics poll shows, in 2011 that there is a high percent of the public that requests capital punishment to be reinstated in the UK for serious crimes such as; murder, child murder and police officer kills.

As far back as one can look into human civilization, justice for a murder victim has always been by taking the life of the killer. In today’s society capital punishment is needed to defend it from further harm, bring justice and/or vengeance to the victims of the loved ones, and encourage psychological deterrence. As of today, there are thirty-two states which offer the only just punishment for a crime without parallel and eighteen states having abolished the death penalty.

This paper will attempt to prove the relationship between homicide and the varying theories of Criminology which attempt to explain it. It will provide an introduction that will detail the legal definition of homicide, statistics related to its occurrence, evident behavioral patterns behind homicide in the United States, as well as a description of theories that may best describe the reasons for the occurrence of homicide. It will provide public policy prescriptions to attempt to lower the incidence of homicide in the United States before concluding.

This essay will ultimately contend that the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014 is an ill-founded initiative made by legislators, giving the impression of a powerful Government without truly reducing the violence. Using a close reading of each provision of the legislation in unison with extrinsic materials, this piece will outline the efficacy, necessity and likely impacts of the Act.

Another type of custodial sentence is a mandatory life sentence which is the only sentence a judge has to impose for murder and is allowed to state the minimum length of sentence for the offender before is eligible to be released on license. This minimum is governed by Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 269 Shed 21 and it is giving to the judge the starting point for minimum length to be ordered to the offender, ranged from life sentence down up to 12 years, e.g. for child murder, sexual or sadistic murder the offender can serve 30 years imprisonment. The aim of retribution, incapacitation and general deterrence can be used to support this type of sentencing.

In the United States the degrees of murder were created by legislatures. Pennsylvania was the first state to depart from common law in 1794, that divided murder into first and second degree. (Samaha, pp333). The elements of common law murder are: actus reus voluntary act of killing another person, mens rea express or implied malice aforethought, circumstances 1. victim reasonable person or human being and 2. all person except alien enemy in times of war, all lead to the harm (Samaha, 2015). The elements of modern law are actus reus, mens rea, causation, death, and attendant circumstances if any.

The current conventional criminal justice process takes a more punitive, ‘retributive’ view of criminal justice. The retributive approach has become grounded into our current system of justice whereby it intends to establish blame on offenders and make them repay their debt to society by inflicting a form of punishment (Ball, 2000). The general stance in relation to the ‘retributive system’ is that its more offender-oriented and its focus is the past rather than the future (Griffiths, 1999). In addition to establishing blame, it tends to give less attention to future-oriented concerns such as how to repair the damages caused by the crime and how future recurrences can be prevented (Young, M, 1999). It has been argued that the existing ‘retributive system’ places excessive emphasis on the past whilst being less constructive towards victims, offenders and the society, as a result youths tend to get labelled as criminal from an early age leading in some cases to a life delinquent offending behaviour (Braithwaite, 1989). At present a crime is viewed as a social conflict within society, and so a crime is perceived an offense against society rather

Serious crimes such as murder, burglary and rape have raised questions as to whether the young offenders should face severe punitive treatment or the normal punitive measures in juvenile courts. Many would prefer the juveniles given harsh punishment in order to discourage other young people from engaging in similar activities and to serve as a lesson to these particular offenders. However, results from previous studies indicate such punitive measures were neither successful nor morally acceptable. Instead, the solutions achieved have unfairly treated the youths and compromised the society status (Kristin, page 1).

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

When a young person is convicted or pleads guilty to murder in England and Wales, schedule 21 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that those under 18 must serve a minimum of 12 years in a detention and training centre (Legislation.gov.uk, 2016a). This is a mandatory

  The punishment of juvenile criminals, specifically those between the ages of 13 and 18, in the event that they commit crimes of murder, is not severe enough. Minors between these critical ages in the teenage life who commit crimes of murder should be prosecuted as adults in all situations and locations.

Due to the fact that James Edwards Jr., 15, and Chancey Luna, 16 committed the crime due to being “bored” gives them no hope to be let free. News article writers of Mail Online, Jeff Maysh and Meghan Keneally, stated “Suspect James Edwards 'danced and laughed' in the county jail and showed no remorse for their fatal actions.” These two criminals should be imprisoned for the rest of their life with no sympathy when penalizing them. If it is declared by officers and reporters that their actions were done because of “boredom”, it is very clear that they will go out and seek to commit yet another crime as easily as they did the first time. In another case Tyler Hadley used a 22-inch framing hammer to kill his parents Mary and Black Hadly which reports stated, “Police visited the Hadley home again, and found Hadley's parents dead in the master bedroom around 4:20 a.m. Sunday.” When it comes to the topic of teens being convicted of committing such atrocious crimes , most of us will solemnly agree that no person with the state of mind in which a person can murder another their own parents we can surely agree that they can not be trusted to stroll by civilians like it is nothing. Just think of how many innocent people can be in danger with such a ruthless killer on the loose; especially one like Tyler Hadly in which he threw a party with his parents in the mater bedroom of the house in which the crime was committed. Many morals have been

The United Kingdom has no constitution, which is why English law can only be found in the common law of the United Kingdom. This common law does not regard the general defence of necessity as a justification, but rather as an excuse to a crime which is then classified as duress, and it does not recognise the defence of necessity to any murder. The English law, to my opinion, is still quite unclear as to whether or not the ground of justification of necessity, as to the unlawfulness of a crime, is accepted or not. The reason for this is because quite a clear position had been taken up by the courts in the United Kingdom regarding this matter, until the recent case of the conjoined twins, which led to a dispute in the English law as to the ground of justification of necessity.