Homicide and the Politics of Law Reform
What makes murder, murder? How should we understand the difference between intentional and reckless killing? Should offenders be punished differently according to the perceived severity of their crime and when should they be excused? These questions are the topic of intense debate within legal circles and beyond in the UK, the US, and the rest of world. Jeremy Horder's role as the Law Commissioner for England and Wales on criminal law has given him unique insight into these questions and the debates surrounding them. Here he analyses the recent political and legal reform movements, offering a political history of homicide law reform from the 19th century to the modern era. Using homicide as a starting point, Horder raises deeper questions of who is and should be responsible for making and changing the law. What role should there be for expert bodies, judges, and politicians? What role should there be for the general public? These questions invoke strong emotional responses. Horder argues that comprehensive research into, and a degree of difference to, public opinion on the scope of homicide is essential to the reform process. It is essential principally as a means of conferring true legitimacy on homicide reform in a democracy. Elite or expert opinion alone will never authentically secure such legitimacy. Offering an insider's view into the processes of achieving law reform, Horder expresses criticism of a system that excludes the vast majority of people from consultation on reform of the laws that govern them.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
argument attack Capital Punishment causing death circumstances claim clause CLRC Commission on Capital committed common law concerned conduct consultation context corporate manslaughter courts Cr App crime criminal law criminal law reform death penalty diminished responsibility discussion doctrine duty duty of care euthanasia evidence example excessive defence experts fact fault element further Government gross negligence guilty homicide law reform Horder House of Lords Ibid intention intentionally involved issue joint criminal venture joint venture judge jury killing kind labelling Law Commission 2006 law of homicide law’s legislation lethal liability liberal-progressive loss of self-control moral normative partial defence person principle prohibited outcome prosecution provocation public opinion question reason reckless regarded regulatory relevant risk of causing Royal Commission rules scholars scope second degree murder self-defence sentence serious harm serious injury serious risk Simester and Sullivan suicide Suicide Act 1961 transferred malice UKHL unlawful V’s death victim violence