4.4 Criticism

Critique of Murder Legislation

Overview of Murder as a Crime

Murder is universally recognized as the most serious offense within the criminal justice system due to its irreversible impact on victims and their families. The legal definition of murder, coupled with a mandatory life sentence, prompts critical examination of its appropriateness and flexibility in application.

The justification for imposing a mandatory life sentence is predominantly rooted in moral and social principles, emphasizing the sanctity of human life and the profound implications of taking a life. This position is bolstered by societal expectations that the law should reflect a zero-tolerance stance towards actions resulting in death, reinforcing communal values around safety and justice.

Questions Raised about the Definition of Murder

Murder/Manslaughter Division

• Appropriateness of Classification: A fundamental question emerges regarding whether the current legal division between murder and manslaughter is sufficiently clear and just. Are there circumstances in which this classification fails to accurately represent the moral culpability of the accused?

Definition Concerns

• Broad vs. Narrow Definitions: The definition of murder may be criticized as being excessively broad, particularly when considering the grievous bodily harm (GBH) rule, which can label individuals as murderers who, based on their intent or circumstances, may not deserve such severe condemnation. Conversely, one must consider whether the definition is too narrow, inadvertently excluding particularly reprehensible forms of reckless killings, such as those perpetrated by terrorists, which many argue should ethically be treated as murder.

Intent Issues

• Classification Without Intent: This raises further questions about the feasibility of classifying a killing as murder without direct intent from the perpetrator. The nuances between oblique intention (where the perpetrator may not have aimed to kill but recognized that death could occur as a result of their actions) and recklessness are often blurred, complicating judicial outcomes and societal perceptions of justice.

Mandatory Life Sentences

Judicial Discretion

• Uniformity of Sentencing: The imposition of a uniform mandatory life sentence for murder lacks the flexibility that could account for unique mitigating circumstances. Critics argue that judges should possess the discretion to impose lesser sentences in particular instances, such as mercy killings committed in desperate or abusive situations or cases involving battered women killing their abusers, where societal empathy may dictate a lesser punishment.

Partial Defenses

• Complexity and Coverage: While the legal system allows for defenses like diminished responsibility and loss of control—intended to mitigate the severity of the mandatory life sentence—these are often perceived as overly complex and may not encompass all deserving scenarios. Reference Sections 4.6-4.9 for a deeper analysis of partial defenses relevant to murder.

Need for Reform

The intricate nature of intent and the limitations of partial defenses in murder cases are pivotal focal points in discussions surrounding necessary legal reforms.

Historical Context

• Outdated Laws: The Law Commission’s 2005 report highlighted that homicide laws in England and Wales are fundamentally unstable, with certain regulations originating from as far back as the 17th century. A comprehensive overhaul of this legal framework is essential as many current laws lack clear definitions and have not been consistently revised to reflect evolving societal values and understandings of justice.

Alternative Perspectives on Homicide Laws

Some prominent legal scholars, including Sir Louis Blom-Cooper and Professor Terence Morris, argue in favor of abolishing the existing murder laws rather than attempting to reform them. They propose the introduction of a singular offense of criminal homicide, suggesting that factors such as loss of self-control or diminished responsibility should play a crucial role in determining sentencing outcomes, as opposed to existing as fragmented, complex defenses that may further complicate judicial proceedings.