“Is the law in relation to non-fatal offences against the person satisfactory?”
Over the years the law has been praised on its ability to be moulded over time to change with society and ensure a fair unbiased system. Although this is the case there is still reluctance to change the law, this is problematic as some areas in the law are flawed and often criticised due to outdated language or obscure gaps. Non-fatal offences is just one of these areas which there has been many criticism made.
Assault and Battery have a maximum sentence of 6 months; people argue that this is unjust as Battery is conceived as a worse crime and believe that the sentence for Battery should be increased. Although others in agreement to the current sentencing guidelines feel that 6 months for both offences is satisfactory as both can be dealt in the magistrate’s court limiting cost for the individuals and saving the higher courts time as the majority of offences are lower offences.
ABH and GBH have a sentence of 5 years imprisonment, this is criticised for the same reasons as Assault and Battery, GBH is a much more serious offence causing much greater injury therefore should be punished more severely.
GBH with Intent has a sentence of life imprisonment which is 15 years this is the same sentence as for murder. This is criticised as Murder is punishable the same as GBH with Intent even though it’s a much more serious offence. Those in agreements to the sentence of Murder and GBH with Intent feel that they are both such serious crimes that it could easily result in death and it’s merely a small chance that it didn’t.
Many people feel the sentences should increase in accordance to their seriousness rather then the current sentencing for example Battery and ABH. Assault and Battery share the same Mens Rea as ABH but the sentence increases from 6 months to 5 years due to the level of injury, this injustice is shown in the case of...