One thing most agree on is that the punishment often doesn't fit the crime.

Imagine a system where the absolute minimum for murder is 20 years, no parole and you only get out after 20 if you have behaved.

Then, this time increases depending the age of your victim.

Say a person murders a 10 year old and, that 10 year old could reasonablly be expected to live to age 85, this would mean they were robbed of 75 years, so, in this case unless you were ten yourself, you would never be released.

A 30 YO would mean you would spend at least 55 years, and so on.

At least this may act as a better deterrent, especially when kids are murdered, but I must stress, this shoukd only apply to cold murder, where there is no circumstantial situations.

Personally, I would prefer they were done away with. But that's another issue.

Treat each case on its merits. No mandatory sentencing.

Harsh penalties? Yes, definitely.

But let’s be very careful about mitigating circumstances and definitely not lump all murderers immediately into the worst of the worst category.

There are worse things than murdering someone. For example, Rudd’s opening up of onshore asylum seeking, which indirectly (well, actually pretty directly) has cost the lives of hundreds of people. And yet he is probably going to become Labor’s next leader and our next PM after Abbot!!

Rehctub, with much respect, I think that the criteria that you are talking about for judging the severity of a murder and hence the length of a sentence is entirely the wrong sort of thing to base a judgement on.

It can certainly be a small part of it, but there are so many other things to consider, in every murder case.

I can’t imagine that the severity of the sentence would have much to do at all with deterrence. I mean, even the minimum sentence is a huge deal for anyone.

Unfortunately the idiotic evolution fantasy leads many to believe that the life of a human is the same as that of an animal. That is why murdering the unborn is okay to many and the murdering of others often receive small sentences. The more secular we have become the cheaper a life has become.

Nice plug on the subject of anti abortion runner.

Perhaps when a child celebrates it's first birthday, three months after birth, you could call it murder.

Ludwig, as I said in my post, each case has to be evaluated.

About the only thing I agree with with the Seppo's is degree's of offence. I think there's so many types of murder that each need to fall within a few different classes. I think 15 years for intentionally taking a life is nuts and I agree it needs to be harsher. I think sentencing here is lacking right across the board.

I don't believe in the death penalty. It's too final, and the coppers don't always get it right. One innocent person executed is too much and I think that would corrupt the system. I would have no faith in them if that happened. It isn't worth the risk.

Ludwig has it right.
We must allow some differences exist.
I can not ignore runner, I should but the task is too much.
I find his stance bigoted.
And think religions, all of them, have twisted humanity's ability to consider how we best handle so very much including this subject.
Increasingly as western world distances its self from its traditional God, a day will come that sees other fantasy's grow to replace them.
Christians do not like my views, do not give consideration to this question.
Why so many Gods, so many creators.
SURELY if God created this world, and every thing on it, he never needed so many names and faces?

And so ends the sentencing discussion.

In my view, sentencing should be harsh. I support the 65 year sentences for the Bankstown rapists. Forget reabilitation, we want these persons removed from society. I would also support capital punishment for heinous murder, such as Annity Coby and Mrs Morse, plus others.

When the birth control pill came out it was supposed to stop abortions and even now we have the morning after pill, so why are ther eso many abortions?

I can symphathise to some extent with runner as i have serious reservations about late term abortions. We now have medical technology that can save many premature born babies, so should that be a hallmark as to when to cease abortions. At what point do we change from abortion OK to murder?

Cathholics are not allowed to take the pill, so abortion is the next best option.

< Ludwig, as I said in my post, each case has to be evaluated. >

Rehctub, you wrote::

<< this should only apply to cold murder, where there is no circumstantial situations. >>

But there are circumstances, reasons, other considerations, etc, for every murder.

There is no such thing as ‘cold murder’ that is devoid of any ‘circumstantial situations’.

Most convicted murderers are sentenced to
"life" imprisonment - but if we check the
crime stats we'll find that more than half of
them serve much less than the time they were
given. The issue of sentencing is a complicated
one and I'm not sure where the answer lies.
Homicide is rarely premeditated. It usually
happens in the heat of the moment - in such
situations as family arguments or bungled robberies -
when the perpetrator is least likely to think
about the possible consequences. In the few cases
where murder is premeditated, the offender
obviously doesn't expect to get caught or punished
anyway.

I'm not sure that longer sentences would act as a
deterrent. To me it smacks of retribution -
its about society's revenge on a person who takes
another's life. Whether this retribution is justified
is not a matter of measureable facts - it is a moral
judgement - and I guess its for each of us to make.

I personally consider human life sacred and I know that
if a member of my family was killed - I'd want the
perpetrator locked up for life and the key thrown away.

As usual runner gets it wrong.

Since the Enlightenment, when religious leaders started to lose their control over the development of intelligent ideas, the rate of violence has decreased substantially.

The facts can be checked in, The Better Angels of our Nature, by Prof. Steven Pinker of Harvard.

Runner would have society revert to backyard abortions with the lack of safety that entails for women who are often already mothers.

In Parramatta, with no room for doubt, a Catholic institution has many dead unborn children buried.
Yes kick a Catholic is currency but this story is true.
And said to be true of monastery's all over the world.
Children born of Nuns and Priests, Girls in care and priests.
Abortion is not a 20th century invention.

'In Parramatta, with no room for doubt, a Catholic institution has many dead unborn children buried.'

Yea Belly takes the focus off the corruption throughout the union movement. Must make you feel superior. Of course their has never been a union official molestor has there?

This is a tough one, as many of us harbour the belief that sentencing per se is too soft. Thus the perception of the average crim getting off far too lightly is perhaps valid.

The proposition, that if gaol terms are dramatically increased, it will provide a strong deterrent ? Certainly that's not my experience. I first entered a maximum security gaol (Long Bay) in mid 1969. Most inmates (convicted) were uniformly dressed in green, with brown boots or shoes. Discipline was reasonably strict. Movement about the gaol was strictly curtailed and controlled.

Just prior to my retirement, I saw inmates leisurely walking about the gaol, essentially unrestrained as to where they're going. Most wearing 'designer' running shoes and 'parts' of their green uniform, if they felt so inclined. There seemed to be an absence of any real discipline within the institution.

Speaking with several Officers I've known, they all bemoaned the fact, that they've simply capitulated control of the gaols. And at best, all that could be done, was keep 'em behind the main wall.

What a hell of an indictment, eh !

Any facade of discipline was certainly not evident, nor did it even form part of their official vocabulary. This particular situation could be squarely laid at the feet of our illustrious 'do-gooders' and academics.

Neither of these erudite groups need work there, nor are they held responsible when there's an escape or death in custody, more often as a result of THEIR inconceived policies.

Gaol, in any, and all of it's forms, represents absolutely NO deterrent whatsoever, sadly.

murder in the aboriginal communities is at a much higher rate than the rest of the population. Domestic violence is at epidemic rates. Often the perpretrators must do a white mans sentence (easy for most of them) and then have family members speared as payback. This is reality today. Who thinks this is fair?

Lexi, I agree most murders happen in very heated circumstances and that premeditated murders are committed by people who have either planned not to get caught or don’t care about themselves after they’ve done what they are totally driven to do.

But I see your lock-em-up-and-throw-the-key-away desire as not sitting at all well with the rest of your post.

I would have thought that you’d advocate very close scrutiny of each case and very careful determination of the appropriate sentence.

Afterall, if someone commits premeditated murder, they may well have been driven to it by some very strong wrongdoing imposed upon them or there may be some other very strong psychological, sexual, or eliminate-the-competition type of factors involved.

If one of my family was murdered, I’d want to know the exact circumstances and whether my relative had in any way exacerbated the situation before I’d say ‘lock up the perpetrator for life and throw away the key’.

Ludwig writes

'If one of my family was murdered, I’d want to know the exact circumstances and whether my relative had in any way exacerbated the situation before I’d say ‘lock up the perpetrator for life and throw away the key’.'

Maybe the families of the victim should get a say in the punishment/forgiveness/leniency or whatever. They are the most affected.

We have this paradox situation where someone who kills another gets more harshly dealt with than someone who murders another. Why should a home owner have to compensate an intruder who cut himself badly when he broke into a house ? Why is self-defence a crime in Australia ?
Is it because most Judges & Magistrates where trained in australian Universities ? Are educated people in other countries as aloof & inept as here ?

'If one of my family was murdered, I’d want to know the exact circumstances and whether my relative had in any way exacerbated the situation
Ludwig,
My sentiments also but unfortunately blood is thicker than water in the majority of cases. This trait is particularly common with people living in hot climate & under/or under un-enlightened rule. I see it all the time. Something bad happens & everyone wants the perpetrators punished but as soon as the identity of the perpetrator is revealed to be a member of the predominant race here then condemnation for the victim begins in earnest to the stage where the victim has to give up their job & leave. Our legal system is ok it's only the magistrates & judges & criminal defence lawyers who fail us badly & literally exacerbate an already bad situation.
So far as murder goes it has to be life in prison. If it is a killing than I can accept a far lesser sentence. If someone is killed through the influence of drugs then it must be put back onto the authorities who let this happen. The Police are always on the roads looking for drunk drivers, you never see them around Pub carparks where they could stop a driver before they get into a car. Instead they let them hit the road first so they can score fines at the risk of some innocent people getting killed by a drunk. It really is a stupid system.