IN light of recent verdicts, is it not perhaps time to repeal our archaic and obsolete legislation against murder?
When are we likely to encounter an accused killer who was not at least slightly irritated by the deceased and who has never suffered any recognised medical condition such as depression or hay fever?
Acceptable cause for being judgmental is a rarity.
One might understand juries’ aversion to returning a conviction for murder if the death sentence still prevailed, but even the terms of imprisonment handed down are often a mere token.
Paradoxically, a jury has now, in the best traditions of the Dark Ages, confirmed a death sentence on a woman for being sexually unfaithful to a partner (not even, mark you, to her husband). This “ultimate betrayal” (or penultimate to those who believe in marriage) constituted sufficient “provocation” to set aside her right to life.
Might not the victims’ relatives feel similar provocation if they shortly encounter the killer as a free man? We could then have justice, as least for those who are prepared to take it.
But in reality the courts will always stir themselves to deal harshly with those whose actions seem to censure the courts.
John Riseley, Harrogate, North Yorkshire.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here