Tragic Hero left to Cope alone

I was sad to hear that in this week’s paper that one of the heroes’ whose enthusiasm and infectious humour overcame the torment and ordeal of his job had in fact not been dealing with it as well as portrayed.

Tragically PC David Rathband, was found hanged on Wednesday the 29^th of February in his home, the nation was heartbroken to find that Tortured PC Rathband had described that he woke up every morning as the precise time he was shot in the face by the crazed Raoul Moat. PC Rathband described being haunted by the face of Raoul Moat; “I have no recollection of how my wife or children look whatsoever… and that’s what hurts the most.”

However my concern here lies with the lack of support available for PC Davis Rathband that he found it necessary to take his own life. Surely there should have been more help for him in the earlier stages of his ordeal? The family of David Rathband have said that they will “never forgive” Raoul Moat’s disgusting actions, but surely there should be more fault placed on helping him in the aftermath?

Prime Minister David Cameron led tributes saying that, “he did an enormous amount for charities and for other injured police officers.” But all that comes to my mind is why he had to personally raise money and raise awareness shouldn’t the support be there for these heroes who personally contribute to make our society better are then let down by the system of which they are trying to protect?

In accordance with argument PC Rathband told BBC Radio 4's In Touch programme that he felt neglected. "Very early on there was no involvement from social services. I waited 10 months for them to speak to me." Why should our country be persistently let down and let down by its social services? In the case of Baby P, in which two of Baby Peter's social workers are said to have committed a "serious error of judgement" during an incident which saw him "disappear" for 12 days. Why should the everyday people of society have their lives put in jeopardy by social services? Billions of pounds a year are put into this industry, as a fellow tax payer, I cannot help but wonder where our money is going?

The sheer lack of support available in this country is sickening and something needs to be done before more people find themselves lost in this sad situation where they see no light at the end of the tunnel and can't bear to carry on. 

Should life mean life?

In the UK a life prison sentence usually means that the convicted person will spend, on average, 14 years behind bars.

But should life mean life?

Convicted murderers are now challenging their sentences in the European Court of Human Rights, as they claim that the “whole life” tariffs which have been imposed in their cases are contrary to their human rights.

Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter were all convicted for murder and therefore sentenced to life imprisonment, which is the mandatory sentence for the crime. This has been the sentence since death penalty was abolished in 1969.  However, as is well-known, life does not always mean life, and when a judge passes sentence he also sets a tariff, which is the number of years before which the prisoner will be eligible to be considered for early release on licence.

In the case of Peter Coonan the so-called “Yorkshire Ripper” who was convicted for killing 13 women in 1981 and attacked several others. In that case, in 1996 the Home Secretary asked for a recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, as to the minimum tariff. He responded:

“I have no doubt that this is one of the rare cases where the offences were so heinous and the perpetrator so dangerous that life should mean life.”

I feel that when the crimes have been horrific and there is no evidence of remorse of an individual, why shouldn’t they get life?  Why should those convicted of truly criminal and awful crimes be entitled to human rights? You have breached yours by being immoral why should you be entitled to the ‘right to life’ when you can’t respect societies rights. As a utilitarian I believe in the greater good for the greater good for the greater number of people. Why should a criminal be allowed to walk free and risk the people of this countries liberty when they show no genuine remorse for their actions?

Should life mean life? Should those who commit serious crimes, go to jail for the rest of their lives? Or do you think that criminals can be rehabilitated and released back into society?

I thought English law was about justice?

Apparently not... 


There are many complications within the English law, such as murder many feel there should be a death penalty and look at an ideas of "and eye for an eye" others feel the sentence of life should be life, not 30 years. Some say they should have the chance to go back in society to and have support they need in order to try and reform. But the crime that has really got me at the moment, is the law surrounding joint enterprise.

Joint enterprise is a legal concept that has come into the spotlight in recent years. Offences of violence involving groups of young people has increased, so therefore the law on joint enterprise has increasingly been used by the police in the hope of obtaining convictions of the group even though only one person may have actually committed the offence.


Senior judges and the Law Commission have already expressed concern about the way that joint enterprise is being used in modern times. While this law may be reformed in the coming years, it has been in effect for 300 years, and is not going to change any time soon.


The most famous case of Joint enterprise is of Derek Bentley. Bentley was sentenced to death on 11 December for killing Pc Miles during a bungled break-in at a warehouse in Croydon, Surrey.

The court was told his co-defendant, Christopher Craig, fired the fatal shot but because he was still a juvenile in the eyes of the law he escaped the death sentence. However under the crimes of joint enterprise Bentley was sentenced to death, whereas the actual killer Christopher Craig escaped the death sentence and served 10 years until he could walk free. Is that fair and just?

Bentley was convicted on the basis of police evidence- three officers told the court they had heard him encourage Craig to shoot by shouting "Let him have it".
But what did this mean, was Bentley provoking the murder of Pc Miles, or trying to prevent it? 


The crime of joint enterprise, is one that is continuing to rise in the UK and more and more convictions are occurring, but is it fair that if you don't kill someone and you were just there you can be charged with murder too? Should the law be loosened and if this happened would the amount of gang violence increase? Is the law too strict upon this area?


I feel it is, yes you were there at the time and you could of stopped a murder from happening, but what about the rules on omissions. In this country there is no obligation for you stop and help people. If I was walking down the road and I was a qualified lifeguard and I watched a person drown in a river, knowing full well I could save them and simply walked by, I have no criminal liability as I have no due to act. If you see someone dying in the street millions of people could just walk past and do nothing knowing full well they could prevent it. So why should young people in gang's be able to convicted in being at the scene of the crime and being an involvement in murder. When society ignores the same issues as well, surely they are doing the same thing, being oblivious to the fact. I understand that joint enterprise at lot worse and should be they should be criminal liable, as many young people are involved in carrying weapons, but if you don't physically kill someone, why should you serve a lifetime sentence for being with the wrong person at the wrong time. 

Euthanasia

The Oxford dictionary of law defines Euthanasia as ‘the act of taking life to relieve pain’ it is a wide term which covers; voluntary or active euthanasia and non-voluntary or passive euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is where the sufferers life is ended at his specific request. 
The issue of euthanasia, it is subjective as everyone has different moral values so will have different opinions surrounding the topic. There is much controversy in this country over whether it should be legal or illegal.

   Should the law be able to intervene in private areas of morality?

It is an underlying argument that is debated amongst our legal system as they rarely reflect each other, it can be found that some things are moral and legal like the common principles of life, and things can be illegal and immoral such as murder. These areas of law correspond reflectively with morality and help with the enforcement of justice within society. However issues arise when there is debate over the morality of an issue, some areas of the law may be moral and illegal and others may be immoral and legal. Examples include euthanasia and abortion.
To allow a terminally ill individual to end their life could be argued as the only humane, rational and compassionate choice. The right to life and the right to private and family life under the European convention on human rights are argued by the public that they should be interpreted broadly to include decisions about quality of life, including decisions about death if the life is no longer one of quality.  The majority of the population is in favour of voluntary euthanasia as shown in the British Social Attitudes Report 1996 82% of the public believed it should be legalized. In what is believed to be the first such poll specifically targeted at pensioners, 92% of those surveyed replied that doctors should be allowed to end the life of terminally ill patients who want to die. Only 29% agreed with the statement that legalising euthanasia posed a realistic risk of allowing the unscrupulous to end a patient’s life without consent. Yet it continues to be illegal?
On the other hand, some may argue abortion is immoral even though it was legalized in the UK in 1967; some join other pro-life advocates and say that the right to life should always outweigh the right of an individual to equality or to control their own body. 

Should Euthanasia be illegal?

I believe that Euthanasia should be legalised in this country for when a patient is terminally ill and only then after attempts to help them survive have been used, it should be consented by the patient and/or the family members, as Euthanasia humanely ends a patients suffering leaving them to die with dignity and can help shorten the grief and suffering of the patients loved ones. However I feel there should be a point in which we do not allow Euthanasia a in the case of Nan Maitland, in 2011 this 85 year made the headlines after she chose to end her life via euthanasia. She was suffering from slight arthritis and was reported to be in 'great health for a woman of her age' but wanted to avoid 'dwindling' so chose euthanasia. Maitland's decision has been criticised as potentially putting pressure on the elderly to end their lives so they are not a burden to their loved ones, carers or the state. 

I feel that the option should be available there for those who need it but not of public access through hospitals, however I don't know how this would work in practise as it my have great knock on effect on the laws surrounding suicide and murder and could be argued that it could relax the laws, if not instated properly. 

Introduction

Hello, my name is Chloe Bradley. I am now into my second term at my first year of studying LLB Law (Hons) at Bournemouth University. I have been so engaged in the areas I have been studying especially areas including jurisprudence and ethics. I am very open minded and like to challenge the ideas that we are presented and I enjoy being able to express this interest with my flatmates.  Who don't always completely understand what I am saying as hard as I do try to put it into layman's terms. My blog is here basically to challenge the fabric of the law, both subjectively and ethically and it is for anyone to read, whether you too study law or whether you want to further your knowledge of law.