When it comes to a ‘life’ sentence in jail, the first thing that comes to mind is rape and murder. Murder is a very serious offence and the offender is more than often sentenced to life imprisonment. Rape on the other hand isn’t seen as serious and the maximum penalty is around 12 – 15 years imprisonment. Most rapists actually get away with the crime as it often goes unreported. In the 19th century the death penalty was abolished, why was this so and how did it change the world?
The penalty of sexual intercourse without consent rangers from 12 years to a life imprisonment, this is all depending on the jurisdiction and any aggravation factors (Australian Government, n.d.).
By the 1870’s the abolishment of capital punishment had a much wider …show more content…
A person is only found guilty if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person was intentionally killing another. Murder is committed in four ways, 1. killing with intent to kill, 2. killing with intent to cause really serious injury, 3. reckless murder and 4. killing while committing another crime of violence (Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australian Limited, 2013). The maximum penalty for murder is 25 years imprisonment. To be charged with murder the police must prove that there was a conspiracy between two or more people and one of which was you and that the aim of the conspiracy was to murder a person (Legal, Armstrong, 2014). In ethics and law, the aphorism “let the punishment fit the crime” means that the severity of the crime should be shown in the punishment. This concept is common in many cultures and is shown in many ancient texts. The Law of Moses in the ancient Jewish culture shows it specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, and Exodus 21:23-21:27, which includes punishments of “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Wikipedia, 2014). The death penalty was in place for murder until the abolishment of the penalty in the 1900s, once the penalty was abolished the sentence was increased to a life imprisonment of 25+ years. In over eight years in Victoria (1997-2005), 50.9% of all homicide offenders had a criminal history which included a violent offence …show more content…
Queensland was the first to abolish the death penalty in 1922 for all crimes, New South Wales was the last to abolish the penalty in 1985. New South Wales abolished the death penalty for murder in 1955, but retained the death penalty for treason and piracy until 1985. In comparison in 18th century and earlier these two major crimes were both given the same penalty (execution). This may have been due to jail crowding and not having enough room for such a disgrace of a human. Many agreed that 10 – 15 years of imprisonment was not enough for someone convicted of rape. This was justified in a manner that the victim had to live their entire life with the guilt and memories of such a horrid event, so why the person that inflicted such physical and emotional pain should be left to walk free after 10 – 15 years. Many also agreed that it was not fair and just for a murderer to be let out on parole after 10 or 15 years. This was discussed in a manner that they took someone else’s life so why should they get to continue living theirs? Is it fair that a rape victim has to live with that for their whole life but their worst enemy (rapist) could possibly be let out on parole after a lousy 7 years in prison to be lurking the streets again? Is it fair on a
The penalty of sexual intercourse without consent rangers from 12 years to a life imprisonment, this is all depending on the jurisdiction and any aggravation factors (Australian Government, n.d.).
By the 1870’s the abolishment of capital punishment had a much wider …show more content…
A person is only found guilty if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person was intentionally killing another. Murder is committed in four ways, 1. killing with intent to kill, 2. killing with intent to cause really serious injury, 3. reckless murder and 4. killing while committing another crime of violence (Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australian Limited, 2013). The maximum penalty for murder is 25 years imprisonment. To be charged with murder the police must prove that there was a conspiracy between two or more people and one of which was you and that the aim of the conspiracy was to murder a person (Legal, Armstrong, 2014). In ethics and law, the aphorism “let the punishment fit the crime” means that the severity of the crime should be shown in the punishment. This concept is common in many cultures and is shown in many ancient texts. The Law of Moses in the ancient Jewish culture shows it specifically in Deuteronomy 19:17-21, and Exodus 21:23-21:27, which includes punishments of “life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Wikipedia, 2014). The death penalty was in place for murder until the abolishment of the penalty in the 1900s, once the penalty was abolished the sentence was increased to a life imprisonment of 25+ years. In over eight years in Victoria (1997-2005), 50.9% of all homicide offenders had a criminal history which included a violent offence …show more content…
Queensland was the first to abolish the death penalty in 1922 for all crimes, New South Wales was the last to abolish the penalty in 1985. New South Wales abolished the death penalty for murder in 1955, but retained the death penalty for treason and piracy until 1985. In comparison in 18th century and earlier these two major crimes were both given the same penalty (execution). This may have been due to jail crowding and not having enough room for such a disgrace of a human. Many agreed that 10 – 15 years of imprisonment was not enough for someone convicted of rape. This was justified in a manner that the victim had to live their entire life with the guilt and memories of such a horrid event, so why the person that inflicted such physical and emotional pain should be left to walk free after 10 – 15 years. Many also agreed that it was not fair and just for a murderer to be let out on parole after 10 or 15 years. This was discussed in a manner that they took someone else’s life so why should they get to continue living theirs? Is it fair that a rape victim has to live with that for their whole life but their worst enemy (rapist) could possibly be let out on parole after a lousy 7 years in prison to be lurking the streets again? Is it fair on a