The landmark bill that is currently being debated in Parliament is one of the Government’s largest pieces of policies it wishes to pass and will amend and change many areas of justice, sentencing and policing. The bill is facing widespread criticism for a number of its included changes, but it also includes other sections that at least in my own eyes are good things. As is usual when it comes to large widely impacting bills such as this, it isn’t all bad but it also isn’t all good.
So, let’s go over some of the main parts that the bill includes.
Assaulting of emergency workers would see maximum-sentencing of perpetrators doubled to two years.
I believe most agree the above would be a good addition to our sentencing laws and would hopefully serve to increase deterrence of those willing to attack emergency workers. At any time, it is pretty disgusting behavior, but more so during a pandemic this kind of behavior is despicable.
Police Covenant enshrined in law that would help physically protect serving and retired officers and their families, and health and wellbeing of officers and their family.
I do not see a problem with this myself. It is fairly obvious that the police and their family are greater targets for those that may have a vendetta. Police work can also be mentally taxing on health and wellbeing for obvious reason. Just like most jobs should have protections and support in place for things their workers are predisposed to, so should authorities.
Whole Life Orders for premediated murder of a child. Also allow Judges to give maximum sentence to 18–20-Year-olds in exceptional cases, for example acts of terrorism that cause mass loss of life
For those who do not know, a Whole Life Order is a sentencing that not only puts someone in jail for life (like a life sentence) but also gives them no chance of parole or conditional release (unlike a life sentence), although it is possible that they may be released on compassionate grounds (due to great age, ill-health etc). The Whole Life Order was introduced in the early eighties and can only be used for certain serious crimes and for such criminals to be at least 21-years or older to receive this sentence.
What this section of the bill will do is add the maximum sentence of Whole Life Order to acts of premediated murder of children and also allows Whole Life Orders to be given to 18–20-year-olds under exceptional circumstances – such as mass fatality terrorist attacks.
I support this extension that has been made as child murder is a disgusting depraved act that should be punished for life, truly for as long as they live. And also, some loopholes are closed up for those under 21, who full well know what they’re doing is wrong. I myself am supportive of this. I do believe there are some deeply disturbed criminals who simply cannot be rehabilitated to function safely in normal society.
There are those though, who have a strong belief in rehab, that this new measure is perhaps too harsh. And there are also those who argue that terrorists locked up simply serve to radicalise others while locked up. I do think these problems need to be solved, but while solving these problems such people need to be kept locked away, we can’t just let such people freely wander about with the high chance of committing further deadly acts.
Stopping automatic early release for certain offenders
Another part of the bill includes allowing the ability to stop early release of certain offenders. These offenders would need to fit the criteria of posing a continued danger to the public. This part also aims to scrap halfway early release for offenders who have committed serious and violent sexual offenses.
To me this really seems like a common-sense approach, again to many who I believe simply cannot be rehabilitated from what they are predisposed to doing. Releasing an offender who still presents a clear danger to the public is stupidity, just as is releasing someone into the public who would probably go on to commit rape again. If there is no clear evidence these people can be trusted on the street or around people, then there is no reason to give them early release.
It obviously doesn’t solve the problem entirely, if such people are predisposed to doing their acts again, then they will simply just do it after being released from their full sentence. Other solutions will also clearly be needed, but there will be much debate over this on what is the correct path to take.
Option of Life Sentences for careless Drivers who have killed
This measure aims to have the Life Sentence available as a maximum sentence for irresponsible and careless drivers who have caused death. So, this would include drivers who have killed someone due to falling asleep at the wheel, drivers that were using a mobile phone while driving, or drivers who were not following speed limits and so on.
That gives an explanation to some of the reasons a life sentence may be introduced for manslaughter in these cases of driving. Life Sentence would not be introduced as an option for incidents of death by driving that were entirely genuine accidents, where the driver had been following all usual rules and laws while driving, or let’s say in a case where the fault laid entirely on the victim instead, for example if they didn’t follow typical road safety procedure.
Deaths caused on the road are always tragic, and I think that bringing in the threat of a life sentence for drivers who aren’t following the rules of the road and the law while driving, which in turn leads to the death of an innocent or innocents, should indeed face the life sentence, as it is a case where the death or deaths could have been avoided, and the irresponsibility lies entirely on said driver.
It is clearly hoped this will lead to less deaths on the road caused by careless driving and ultimately make the roads safer. Some will naturally argue that the life sentence is too harsh for manslaughter.
Closing Trust Law Loopholes
This was on the news recently. Basically, trust law is widened to close loopholes that allowed sports coaches and religious leaders to engage in sexual activity with 16 and 17-year-olds who are within their care. It’s another common-sense measure that I gladly welcome.
Criminal Damage to Memorials
This area of the legislation aims to increase maximum sentencing for those who have caused criminal damages to memorials from 3-months to 10-years in prison. So, these include any memorials such as war memorials and memorials to individuals. This part of the legislation came about following graffiti put on to the Cenotaph by protesters last year, and a man who urinated on the PC Keith Palmer memorial.
I must say to me this is certainly very excessive. I certainly do not support the damaging of memorials as it is a disgusting thing to do and it should be punished. But being able to give sentences of up to 10-years for this crime does seem way over the top. These people can be made to see the error of their ways. Longer criminal sentences on these people in my eyes is counterproductive and likely to drive them into a life of further crime. Punishments at most for this should be within hefty fines and if-needed several months prison sentences at most. Mandatory community sentences and reeducation programs could also be something to consider for these people.
Reversal of Bail Reforms
Aim would be to reverse bail reforms which have led to suspects of violent and serious crimes being released without restrictions. It aims to enable conditions to be imposed on these suspects who are recognised to possibly pose a risk to victims, witnesses, and the general public.
Again, it really is just common sense right here and there’s not much else that needs to be said on it.
Police Search Warrant Expansion
Enables the possibility of police being allowed to obtain search warrants to help find human remains in cases where prosecution is not possible. These cases aim to fix loopholes when suspects die, if a suspect is unfit to plead, or if they have already been convicted without a body being found.
I’d say that this part of the bill is laid out clearly enough that it really isn’t anything left up to abuse. It simply just fixes some loopholes.
Expanded Police Powers on Protests
Now this is probably the most controversial part of this bill and what most people are complaining about when referring to this bill. The bill in this part aims to expand police powers to impose more extensive limits on protests and increased powers to crackdown on protests and convict protesters that break the imposed limits, breaking of limits that lead to serious consequences to the public or a member or members of public can be punished via fines, months in jail, or at the maximum up to 10-years in prison. This part of the bill has come about due to disruptions caused by the Extinction Rebellion movement, for example on blocking vital roads.
More specifically this part of the bill gives increased powers to tackle and handle non-violent static protests, specifically those that are significantly disruptive to the public (such as via blocking of roads or making disruptive noise) and those that inhibit vehicular access to the Parliamentary estate. It is evident that police already have such powers they can use against marches, but that these measures are aimed at static protests which legislation did not cover to the extent it did with marches. So, in essence this in the Government’s view is closing a loophole.
This part also aims to give more powers for police to tackle unauthorized encampments that interfere with the usage of land.
Many argue this goes against right to protest and limits freedom of expression and that it leads to a slippery slope of encroachment on freedoms and the ability to protest against government and authority to show discontent with the issue of the day. Many believe that protests should have a degree of non-violent disruptiveness to them as they are not meant to be entirely pleasant, and as such this brings increased awareness of the protest’s existence, rather than having them be more easily ignored.
Expanded Stop and Search Powers
Another controversial part of the bill includes the expanding of police stop and search powers. The aim of this expansion is to support serious violence reduction. More specifically it will make it easier for police to carry out checks on individuals who have previously been convicted of carrying a knife.
I think it’s clear why many are wary of this part as they rightly should be. We all have seen in the past how stop and search powers cause more problems than they solve. They play a part in violating someone’s personal rights, and they tend to disproportionately target minorities, which can create social and racial issues and strain existing social and racial issues, leading to general distrust of authority.
The Bill as it Stands
You can read the full 300+ page bill here, there are many other parts to it most of which people don’t know about and not all of it can be fitted into this blogpost without making it over the top, so I have merely gone over some of the main parts of the bill (in simplified manner), including parts that are controversial.
As it stands the bill has passed its 2nd Reading in the House of Commons having passed the 1st Reading. Labour pledged to vote against the bill on its 2nd Reading due to concerns over the right to protest and freedom of expression. Due to the Tory majority the bill is likely to pass the Commons probably without amendment. After that it will go on to the House of Lords who may possibly create some trouble for the Government, but usually this house will back down if several of their proposed amendments are rejected in the Commons. The House of Lords may also simply choose to let the bill take its course without much interference if any at all.
Thank you for reading this post, if you have any queries please Email me, you can find my Email in the Contacts & Community section. Please also follow The Weekly Rambler on Twitter, Reddit, Pinterest and Facebook which you can access through the buttons at the bottom of this website. You can also use the social media buttons under each blogpost to share with your family, friends and associates. You can also subscribe to Email notifications at the right-side of this website to know whenever a new post goes up (you can easily unsubscribe from this at any time through a button in each Email notification), or alternatively you can use an RSS Feed Reader. Please also join my FB Group The Weekly Ramblers Readers Group where readers can more easily talk with each other and also with me whenever I am on, you can also find it in Community.