The principal problem with the murder law as it stands is the mandatory life term. I think it should be simply left up to the judges in individual cases to pass sentences that correspond to the crime. It is wrong to include all types of murder from serial killings to mercy killings in one single category.
The law commission has published a proposed reform of the defence of "provocation" in murder cases. The recommendations would make the offence of murder more available to victims of domestic violence who kill their partner in self-defence. At present, if the provocation defence is successfully put forward the accused will be convicted of manslaughter rather then murder and the judge will not have to pass a life sentence. The experts also proposed tightening the law so the provocation defence could not be used in cases where someone has killed for revenge - for example, a jealous husband who murders an unfaithful wife.
If the defence of provocation was reformed it would acknowledge that society does not accept extreme violence as a response to actions or insults which do not include physical threats and it would eliminate the historical anomaly in the law that excuses killings based on anger. It would also alleviate the fear that the defence is being used by men to kill women and it would remove the problems associated with complicated charges to the jury. The Law Commission said the defence should apply if the accused "acted in response to gross provocation" which caused them to have a "justifiable sense of being seriously wronged", or in response to a "fear of serious violence towards the defendant or another". The experts did not recommend creating a separate partial defence to murder which would allow a defendant to claim they acted in self-defence despite using excessive force - the so-called "Tony Martin" defence after the Norfolk farmer who shot and killed 16-year-old burglar Fred Barras in August 1999.
The reform of the law on murder would be the first wholesale re-examination of the subject since the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment from 1949 to 1953, which led to the Homicide Act in 1957.
John Reid, the health secretary, has raised concerns about how the shake-up might affect abortion or euthanasia. Letters from other ministers have also warned of difficulties. Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, raised the issue of how the shake-up might affect train fatalities and Ivor Caplin, a defence minister, warned soldiers who kill during conflict might be affected.
Murder sentences should not be reduced automatically simply because of a guilty plea, says a new MPs' report At present judges, when sentencing murderers to the mandatory life sentence, can reduce the tariff - the minimum term they must serve - if the defendant pleads guilty. But although they are spared the ordeal of a trial many murder victims' relatives are unhappy.
In July this year Amanda Champion's killer, James Ford, pleaded guilty to her murder and was jailed for at least 15 years - it would have been longer had he denied the charge. Amanda's uncle, Lewis Champion, told the BBC News website Ford did not deserve any credit for his plea, saying: "Nothing at all is worth taking five years off a murder sentence."
Lord Woolf's Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) have caused controversy by suggesting a one third discount off sentences for early guilty pleas in all types of crime. As a result murderers who face a 15-year tariff could get five years knocked off if they give themselves up to the police. The SGC should reconsider its proposals to reflect Parliament's wish that murder should be treated as a separate category of offence. In the case of murder, reduction in sentence for a guilty plea should not be granted in addition to reductions for other mitigating circumstances. Although it could be argued that by making provision for murder tariffs, Parliament sent a clear signal that it expects murder to be treated differently to other offences. Some may also argue that guilty plea discounts could have potential benefits for victims and witnesses by avoiding the trauma of a trial.
Reducing murder sentences due to an early plea sends out the wrong signals to violent criminals and completely undermines the government's claim to be tough on crime.
