Britain moves to devalue human life
Published Tuesday, December 20, 2005 by Editor | E-mail this post 

This week, the Law Commission in the United Kingdom proposed introducing grades or categories of murder, not unlike the system in operation in the United States. Presently, murder convictions in the UK carry a mandatory life sentence, as they should. There is no 1st or 2nd degree murder. Now under new proposals from the commission, courts should consider a person’s intent and whether or not there was an intention to kill.
Frankly, a person’s intention is and should be considered irrelevant. The fact of the matter is a person is dead due to the actions of another, in such a case a person should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Only in a situation of self-defense or an accident should there be an exception. Murder is murder, no manslaughter, vehicular homicide and so on and so forth. Why should we hold such a carefree and cavalier attitude toward the value of human life? If a person kills out of rage or through methodical planning it should make no difference, just as it makes no difference to the mortality of the victim who is just as dead.
Under the British proposals, for example, a person who’s plan was to cause "serious harm," but not kill, could be charged with 2nd degree murder. Such a proposal is a victory for criminality. If a person intends to cause harm and their actions result in the death of another, that is murder without question and no distinction should be made in Britain, America or anywhere else for that matter. It is unfathomable that a civil society would seriously consider such a move. We at the Phalanx can only ask why.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4544238.stm
It is not "devaluing human life" to take circumstances into account. In fact, one might suggest that is "devaluing" to reduce people and events to homogeneous, interchangeable units.
And degree-based homicide is most definitely not a "victory for criminality." Quite the opposite. By allowing lower degrees of homicide, you increase the likelihood that a wrongful taker of life will in fact be punished. Thinking strictly in terms of the guilty, it is far better that they be convicted of manslaughter than acquitted of murder.
Perhaps watering down laws may make the prosecution's job a little easier, but it doesn't change the fact that a murder has been committed. Circumstances should be taken into account in cases of self-defense or accident, but whether or not someone planned to kill days ago or acted in the heat of the moment, will not reassure a weary public when a murderer is allowed to roam the streets. If anything, a person who kills in rage should be punished more severely as they clearly lack self-control and short fuse killers on the loose would present a serious threat to civil society. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.