[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	The Law Commission
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> The Law Commission >> Partial Defences to Murder (Report) [2004] EWLC 290(appendix c) (06 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/2004/290(appendix_c).html Cite as: [2004] EWLC 290(appendix c)

[New search] [Help]

 


APPENDIX C

BRIEF EMPIRICAL SURVEY OF PUBLIC OPINION RELATING TO PARTIAL DEFENCES TO MURDER

By Barry Mitchell

Professor of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Coventry University

Introduction

1. As part of its project on Partial Defences to Murder^[1] (hereafter the "PDM project") the Law Commission was keen to elicit evidence of public opinion on homicides in which defendants would be likely to raise a defence based on provocation, diminished responsibility or the use of excessive force in self-defence. Whilst there has been a good deal of research in England on popular views across a broad range of crimes, there has been comparatively little work specifically concerned with homicide. Indeed, the only national survey was conducted in October 1995^[2] (hereafter the "1995 survey"), although that was supplemented by a considerably smaller survey which did not claim to represent the country as a whole.^[3] Between them they provide useful data of public perceptions of various homicides, some of which are clearly very relevant to the PDM project, but there are inevitably many issues relating to provoked, diminished and self-defence homicides which they were unable to address.

The Survey

2. Time and financial constraints prohibited a further national survey, but it was clearly possible to conduct a more modest study which would provide a flavour of public sentiment on many of the issues falling within the Law Commission's terms of reference. It was therefore agreed that a short series of interviews would be undertaken with a group of individuals drawn from various parts of the country who might be expected to reflect a wide cross-section of backgrounds and personal circumstances (hereafter "the main sample").^[4] The Law Commission was also keen to elicit the views of the next-of-kin of those who had been killed, and a small sub-group of these secondary victims were included in the survey (hereafter "the SAMM respondents").^[5]
3. A total of 62 interviews – 47 in the main sample and 15 with SAMM respondents - were conducted between late August and October 2003, at a time and in a place suitable to the respondents.^[6] A brief statistical analysis of the respondents is set out in Appendix I at the end of this report. In short, it indicates that they come from a broad spectrum of backgrounds and should reflect a variety of ethnic, religious and cultural views.
4. Having been briefly reminded of the nature and purpose of the survey, respondents firstly provided some demographic details. The main sample then made some general observations about the criminal justice system and its response to crime; whereas the SAMM respondents were invited to summarise the case with which they had been involved.^[7] The interviews took about one hour and fifteen minutes on average,^[8] and the majority of time was devoted to inviting respondents to comment on a short series of scenarios.^[9] The objectives were to determine whether the scenario was regarded as one of the more or less serious homicides, and to identify the factors which influenced this assessment. In the light of the 1995 survey, it was expected that respondents would recognise variations in the moral culpability of different homicide scenarios – and the expectation was indeed well-founded – but respondents in the 2003 study were not asked to define or describe what they regarded as the most serious cases. An indication was also sought as to what sentence was felt to be appropriate, (full details of which are set out in Appendix III).^[10] The original facts were then varied, one fact at a time, and respondents were asked to say whether that variation affected their assessment of the seriousness of the scenario. In the last stage of the interviews, respondents were invited to rank the original scenarios in order of gravity (brief statistical details of which are contained in Appendix II^[11]), and then to put them into groups such that each group represented a separate offence.
5. The interviews were recorded on audio-tape and contemporaneous notes were taken on a prepared form.

Homicide scenarios

6. It is perhaps appropriate to preface discussion of the respondents' comments on the scenarios by underlining two points. First, there is an obvious need for caution when interpreting the statistical analysis of this survey because of the small size of the figures. Second, it would be incorrect to assume that respondents' thoughts and suggestions are necessarily entirely logically consistent. They were giving responses to a series of questions and did not have the opportunity to go back through their earlier replies to check for possible inconsistencies. Moreover, the possibility that their opinions changed in the course of the interviews, as they thought more about the issues, should not be discounted.^[12]

Scenario A ("The Battered Wife")

A woman had been physically and verbally abused by her husband for many years. He came home one night, insulted her and punched her again. She decided she could take no more, so she waited till he was asleep, got a knife from the kitchen and went to the bedroom where she stabbed him to death.

7. In the battered wife scenario provocation ought probably to be unavailable to the defendant because it appears that even if she lost her self-control when abused by her husband, she had had ample time in which to cool down. Indeed, killing him was apparently premeditated and conviction for murder would be likely. Diminished responsibility might be a possible alternative defence if, say, she was suffering from clinical depression and that abnormality substantially impaired her mental responsibility for the killing.
8. Public opinion on this scenario was distinctly equivocal in the sense that just under a third of respondents ranked it in the worst three scenarios, a third placed it in the least serious three scenarios, and just over a third ranked it in the intermediate group (see Appendix II). At one extreme, this homicide was regarded as very serious meriting a sentence of natural life imprisonment; at the other it was suggested there should be no prosecution at all. Even those who favoured prosecution did not always advocate a custodial sentence, preferring either a community rehabilitation order or counselling. The largest group of respondents thought that, given that all homicides are serious but some are worse than others, this ranked somewhere in the middle and recommended a fixed period of imprisonment, measured in single figures.
9. Two characteristics which were most frequently identified as influencing respondents' views were the years of abuse and the premeditation. The former obviously elicited sympathy for the woman's predicament and many respondents replied that we all have limits on our tolerance and that eventually people will just "snap". Others simply said she had been "driven to it". Conversely, premeditation clearly aggravates the homicide, but this response was sometimes moderated by suggestions that the woman experienced a cumulative anger and that although she appeared outwardly calm she may well have still been emotionally upset when she stabbed her husband. Moreover, some commented that it may be unrealistic to expect her to retaliate immediately after his abuse, because she would simply have suffered more abuse. The difficulty respondents had in assessing the gravity of this homicide was also illustrated by the fact that the criticism that she should have left him was sometimes counter-balanced by recognition of the fact that it might not be easy to do so. A small number of respondents thought that it was more appropriate to treat this as a kind of self-defence rather than provocation.
10. There was no apparently significant variation in the opinions of male and female respondents. This is evidenced in the recommended sentences which are shown in Appendix III. The only other relevant data here stems from the ranking exercise (see Appendix II) in which respondents were invited to put the 10 scenarios in order of gravity, with the most serious scenario first. On average, male respondents regarded this as the seventh most serious scenario, whereas female respondents placed it a little higher with an average ranking of 4.89.^[13]
11. In the 1995 survey, respondents were invited to consider a very similarly drafted scenario:-

A woman had been physically and sexually abused by her husband for three years. He came home one evening and started hitting her again. She felt she couldn't stand any more abuse, so she waited until her husband was sleeping, then hit him over the head with a saucepan, killing him.

12. On average, respondents ranked this as the fifth most serious of a total of eight scenarios,^[14] giving it a mean score of 8.1 on a scale of 1 to 20 (where 20 represents the worst possible homicide). The account of the 1995 survey comments that the scenario "provoked a broad range of reactions. Almost a third rated it as one of the three worst cases, four out of ten thought it one of the three least serious, and 27 per cent perceived it as of middling severity. Interestingly, there were very few significant differences in the responses of subgroups. The severity rating varied considerably within each subgroup – age, gender, social class etc. The only statistically significant variation was by marital status; married or cohabiting respondents were slightly less likely than single or "never-married" respondents to rate this scenario as one of the two most serious homicides (14 per cent compared to 25 per cent)."^[15]
13. The idea that people who have not personally experienced a (possibly de facto) marital relationship are likely to find it difficult to fully appreciate the predicament of a battered wife, is logical and understandable, although it would clearly be wrong to assume that those who are single have not at some stage had such a relationship.
14. Since the figures in the 2003 survey are so small it is very difficult, and unwise, to draw any clear or confident inferences. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that three of the four life sentences were recommended by single respondents, and all but one of the 16 single respondents felt some sort of immediately custodial sentence would be appropriate whereas more of the married, cohabiting, divorced or separated respondents recommended a psychiatric or non-custodial sentence.
15. In both surveys, respondents who treated this as one of the more serious scenarios identified the element of premeditation and the fact that she had alternative courses of action available as aggravating features. In contrast, those who took a more sympathetic view suggested the premeditation was perhaps misleading since the wife's mind would be in a state of turmoil – "she wouldn't be thinking straight" – and that this would be a function of the lengthy abuse she had endured.
16. When the facts were varied so that the woman was verbally but not physically abused by her husband there were some interesting variations in responses. Some stressed the more obvious point that the woman then faced no physical threat to her well-being, so that the homicide was more serious, whereas others thought that verbal abuse can nonetheless be very bad so that the difference was less than might initially be supposed. Thus, although the majority of respondents thought that this variation was more serious than the original, some thought the difference was not significant. On the other hand, most respondents felt more confident in expressing their thoughts by reference to increasing the sentence they would impose rather than by convicting the woman of a more serious offence.
17. The second variation to the original facts envisaged the woman having being raped by her husband rather than physically and verbally abused. Here respondents were very evenly divided in that almost equal numbers thought that it either made the homicide less serious or made no difference. Again, those who thought it rendered the killing less serious would reflect that view by reducing the sentence, rather than not prosecuting the woman for homicide at all.
18. If, on the other hand, there was clear evidence that the woman was clinically depressed when she killed her husband, the vast majority of respondents thought the matter should be viewed very differently – just four said it made no significant difference. About a third of them thought she should not be prosecuted for any form of criminal homicide, and those who still favoured prosecution very largely said that imprisonment would be inappropriate and that some form of treatment and/or counselling was to be recommended.
19. Only five respondents thought that reversal of the sexual roles – i.e. if a man killed his abusing wife - would make any difference to their evaluation of the gravity of the case, and even then they were usually a little hesitant in doing so. A man, they felt, would be able to respond immediately to any abuse, he would not be expected to wait until his wife was asleep and so his killing her ought not to be premeditated.
20. Amending the facts so as to include the son in the homicide marked a more substantial variation to the original scenario:-

Suppose instead that, after the husband had gone to bed, their son (who had witnessed the abuse over the years) came in. Acting together, the son held his father down while the woman, having got a knife from the kitchen, fatally stabbed him. They then disposed of the body.

21. All but four respondents thought that this made the offence more serious, but again there were considerable differences in the extent to which respondents thought the killing was worse. The vast majority favoured increasing the sentence but did not regard this as one of the most serious homicides. It seemed more deliberate, and also more essentially unjust because there were two of them against a single victim. By disposing of the body they revealed an element of planning and premeditation, and an awareness that they had done wrong. Some respondents criticised the mother in particular for involving her son in the enterprise; she should have set a better example to him. Others, though, stressed the need to consider the son's age; the older he was the more criticism he would deserve, although one or two respondents thought that children would naturally try to support their mother in these circumstances. Some commented that the son would also have suffered by seeing his mother being abused and, especially if he was a young teenager, it would be important that he be rehabilitated rather than punished.

Scenario B ("Camplin")

A 15-year old boy agreed to have sex with a man. Afterwards the boy felt ashamed and the man ridiculed him. So the boy picked up the first thing that came to hand, a frying pan, and hit the man repeatedly over the head with it, killing him.

22. The second scenario was based very heavily on the facts of DPP –v- Camplin^[16] where the defence was one of provocation. The immediacy of the defendant's response was important, but the particular issue was the potential relevance of his age.
23. All but one respondent did not regard this scenario as one of the worst kinds of homicide. Again, however, there was considerable variation in the way in which respondents expressed their assessment of it. Only eight respondents ranked this in the three most serious scenarios, and the remainder were fairly evenly split between placing it in the three least serious and the intermediate group. Five thought there should be no prosecution for homicide. The suggested sentences varied from counselling/treatment or community rehabilitation at one end to life imprisonment at the other.
24. Most respondents thought that the lack of any premeditation – the impulsivity of the killing reflecting the emotional nature of the defendant's reaction – and the provocation through ridicule were significant mitigating factors. Most respondents thought that sympathy should be shown to the defendant because he was only 15 years old – he would thus be mentally and emotionally immature, possibly unsure of his sexuality and incapable of knowing how to respond to being ridiculed. At least twelve respondents, however, thought differently, that teenagers grow up relatively quickly and he knew what he had agreed to and what he was doing, and should be treated the same as an adult.

Scenario C ("The Attempted Rape/Burglary")

An Asian woman returned home to find two white men attempting to rape her 15-year old daughter. She got a knife from the kitchen. The men shouted racist abuse at her and started to run away. She chased after them and stabbed one of them several times in the back, killing him.

25. This scenario might invoke thoughts of pleading provocation and/or self-defence/prevention of crime as possible defences. The likely difficulty is that the killing appears too deliberate; the woman chases after the men and stabs one of them in the back. Was her reaction sufficiently immediate? Did she over-react to the situation? The facts that she was chasing them and stabbed one of them in the back seem inconsistent with self-defence.
26. Nearly two-thirds of respondents placed this in the middle four scenarios; only four thought it was one of the three most serious, and eighteen ranked it as one of three least serious scenarios. The extent of respondents' variation in evaluation is shown by the fact that eight thought there should be no prosecution of the woman for homicide, whereas one advocated a sentence of natural life imprisonment. The majority had some sympathy for her, especially because she found one of the men trying to rape her daughter; this would produce a highly emotional and possibly irrational reaction and, driven by this, we might understand why she got the knife and chased after the men. That said, a few respondents expressed concerns that she had taken the law into her own hands and had pursued them, and the fact that she stabbed the deceased several times might reflect an overreaction, that she was really trying to kill. Nevertheless, the men should not have been in the woman's home, and many felt this could not properly be regarded as a premeditated killing. What might appear to be an act of revenge – which would clearly aggravate the seriousness of the offence – was at least partly understandable given the woman's emotional disturbance and anger. Thirteen respondents specifically suggested that the racist comments would be irrelevant and 38 made no reference to the racist comments when considering the gravity of the case.
27. In the first variation to the facts the woman returns home to find the men burgling the house instead of trying to rape her daughter. The issue here is whether the burglary constitutes a different/lesser form of provocation or threat. All but five of the respondents thought the homicide would be more serious; burglary would only involve a threat to possessions, not a threat to anyone's personal safety, and material goods are replaceable.^[17] Again, the tendency was to reflect this by advocating an increase in the sentence rather than re-categorising the appropriate offence.
28. The second variation of the facts was more substantial:-

Suppose instead that when the men were attempting to rape the daughter, rather than chase them the woman waited for her husband to return home and told him what had happened. He realised who the men were.

(i) He took a knife, went to the home of one of the men and stabbed him to death.

(ii) A week later he saw the other man in the street and deliberately ran him

down in his car, killing him.

29. These are prima facie very deliberate acts: whatever the provocation, the husband has had time to calm down, especially in the later incident, and the homicides appear to be deliberate acts of revenge.
30. One respondent felt that no prosecution should be brought: the daughter had almost been raped, and the respondent would have done the same in those circumstances. A second respondent said this was less serious than the original scenario. But the remainder regarded the husband's homicides as clearly more serious, and although they recommended sentences varying from two years' imprisonment to capital punishment, there was a marked increase in the terms of imprisonment they proposed in comparison to the original scenario. The husband's crimes involved deliberate acts (especially the second killing), premeditated acts in revenge, in which he had taken the law into his own hands having hunted the men down (in the first case) and killed his victim cold-bloodedly. A small number of respondents identified elements of mitigation – notwithstanding the time lapse, the husband would still be experiencing mental torment or torture, and was trying to protect his family. Two respondents^[18] also raised by way of possible mitigation, the cultural issues which might arise here, in particular the stigma which his daughter and other members of the family would have to bear following the attempted rape.

Scenario D1 ("The Baby Killing")

A 19-year old man was the father of a young baby who constantly cried. One night the man, who had an important job interview the next day, was kept awake by the baby crying. He went into her bedroom and violently shook her and hit her. The baby died.

31. The cries of a baby can constitute provocation in law,^[19] but killing a baby is likely to be viewed as particularly serious^[20] and a court might well conclude the defendant's actions to have been disproportionately violent. Almost half of the respondents ranked this scenario amongst the three most serious, but the remainder placed it roughly equally in either the least serious or intermediate groups.
32. All but two respondents favoured prosecuting the defendant for unlawfully killing his baby, and fourteen thought it was one of the worst possible homicides, but there was a considerable variation in the degree of condemnation of him. Some felt a non-custodial sentence was deserved (with the emphasis on helping or rehabilitating the defendant), whereas at the other extreme, one respondent suggested the death penalty. Several respondents would have sentenced the defendant to either life imprisonment or a substantial fixed term (measured in double figures). Babies are vulnerable – defenceless, helpless, innocent, have had no life; they are at the mercy of their parents, they rely on their parents. Babies do cry and it is usually because something is wrong. The father here was selfish and over-reacted, and the fact that he hit his baby as well as shook her was especially alarming. At the same time, respondents frequently empathised with the father – babies drive you "mad" or "nearly bonkers"; "you can only take so much"; "you're pushed to the limit, so that you don't know what you're doing". Most respondents advocated imprisonment for a fixed period, often measured in single figures, and several respondents suggested the father needed help with learning to control his temper.

Scenario D2 ("The Noisy Neighbour")

Suppose instead that the young man was kept awake by his neighbour constantly playing loud music throughout the night. He had repeatedly asked the neighbour to keep the noise down. The night before the interview the music started at midnight. He got up, got a knife from the kitchen, went to the neighbour's flat and asked him to lower the music. But the neighbour laughed and the man fatally stabbed him.

33. The noisy neighbour clearly provokes the defendant in this case, but there is a strong suspicion that the homicide is to some extent premeditated and that the killer over-reacted.
34. With one exception, respondents favoured prosecuting the defendant here for killing his victim, but there was again a wide variation in the levels to which they condemned his behaviour. Most advocated fixed-term custodial sentences, with a few preferring life imprisonment, but the proposed sentences were slightly less severe than in the original scenario. (Of those able to express an opinion, only 18 thought this was more serious than the baby killing scenario, 13 thought it was of similar gravity, and 23 regarded it as less serious.) The most commonly cited aggravating features were that it was a deliberate act; he had had time to think about it and armed himself with a knife – a wholly unnecessary act. He had other options and had wrongly taken the law into his own hands. Even if he had sought help previously (e.g. by contacting the police and/or local authority/noise abatement), he ought not to have killed his neighbour. Conversely, it was recognised by some respondents that noise can be a form of abuse, and that persistent noise can "drive you to the end of your tether", so that we can understand the defendant's frustration and irritation. But he should have reacted differently.

Scenario E ("The Contract Killing")

A man agreed to kill his victim for £5,000, and carried out his part of that agreement two days later. (Payment of the £5,000 was the only reason for the killing.)

35. The contract killer is an obvious candidate for being regarded as one of the most heinous killers: he means to kill, plans and calmly executes the offence, and exhibits no apparent mitigation.
36. It was unsurprising to find 56 respondents ranked this scenario amongst the three most serious, with 47 treating it as the worst of all scenarios. (One respondent placed it in the least serious scenarios, but that may have been in error.) 57 of the 62 respondents thought this was one of the worst types of homicide; seven advocated some form of capital punishment, 28 favoured natural life imprisonment, and a further 16 preferred life imprisonment with the possibility of release on licence. Two respondents, on the other hand, thought it was less serious than killing a child. The aggravating features were the motive – financial gain is a poor motive, it reflects greed and implies that the killer puts more value on the money he will receive than on the life of another. Even if the killer has financial difficulties, the homicide warrants the same condemnation. He is a very dangerous individual who is likely to kill again. His offence is premeditated and cynical, and shows his indifference towards the victim's life.

Scenario F ("The Argument")

There was an argument between two men and when one man began punching and kicking him, the other pulled out a knife and fatally stabbed his attacker with it.

37. Although there is an element of self-defence in this scenario, there is a strong argument that the defendant has used disproportionate force, and the fact that he was carrying a knife may imply some form of premeditation. Such homicides are not uncommon (within the context of homicides) and they are sometimes characterised by the voluntary consumption of alcohol or other drugs which may partially reduce moral and legal culpability – murder, a specific intent crime, may be reduced to manslaughter.^[21]
38. On the whole, this scenario was treated as of intermediate gravity in comparison to the others. Twelve respondents ranked it amongst the three most serious scenarios, whereas 14 placed in the least serious group. More than half of all respondents thought it comes in between these extremes. It appears to have been regarded as slightly more serious than scenario C ("The Attempted Rape").
39. All but one respondent advocated prosecution for some form of homicide, but there was a wide variation in the recommended sentences, with two respondents favouring non-custodial penalties in contrast to several suggestions of life imprisonment. Twelve respondents thought the scenario represented one of the worst forms of unlawful homicide. A commonly cited aggravating factor was that the killer was carrying a knife with him, and respondents frequently inferred from this that he must at least have considered the possibility that he might have to use violence. Respondents tended to be critical of this, although some did stress that this did not necessarily preclude a possible claim of self-defence and acknowledged that the killer might (reasonably) have anticipated serious violence being threatened against himself. Conversely, several respondents suggested that a self-defence plea would be stronger if the killer had not been carrying a knife and had simply picked up one which had been at hand at the critical time.
40. A broadly similar response was received to a self-defence scenario in the 1995 survey which was drafted as follows:-
41. Two men were having a heated argument at work which developed into a fight. One of them picked up a screwdriver and lunged at the other. Fearing that he would otherwise be stabbed, the unarmed man grabbed a spanner, and in self-defence he hit the other man over the head with it, killing him.
42. There are, of course, obvious distinctions between this and scenario F ("The Argument") in the 2003 survey. In the latter, the killer appears to have been armed with a knife, and was only being attacked with fists and feet. In other words, the killer in the 2003 survey seems to have at least anticipated the possibility of using violence (if only in self-defence), and there is a stronger suspicion that he reacted with excessive force.
43. The 1995 scenario was generally viewed as of intermediate severity, scoring a mean rating of 9.1 on a 1-to-20 scale (where 20 represents the most serious cases). The 2003 survey^[22] echoed the earlier study in that female respondents were slightly more critical than their male counterparts – female respondents were more likely to favour life sentences or fixed terms of 10 to 20 years, whereas male respondents more commonly suggested sentences in the 5-to-10 year range. On the other hand, the 2003 survey did not reproduce the tendency found in the 1995 survey for older respondents to be more critical in this scenario, although the 1995 survey refers to those aged 75 and over, whereas the eldest respondents in the 2003 survey were only in their early 70s. In the 2003 survey there was a fairly even spread of sentence recommendations across the age-groups, although it appeared that the youngest group (aged 18 to 24) were probably the most punitive.^[23]
44. The parties in the original scenario were both male and all respondents felt that it would make no difference if they had been female. On the other hand, 15 respondents suggested that the presence or absence of a prior relationship (albeit perhaps merely as acquaintances) would make a difference. Interestingly, though, nine thought it would be worse if there was such a relationship – usually because that might indicate some sort of "feeling" or premeditation - whereas six felt that either a prior relationship might reflect some form of provocation (i.e. mitigation) or that the killer would have more mens rea if he did not know his victim.
45. Homicides resembling the facts in this scenario are often characterised by the parties having consumed alcohol or other drugs. More than half the respondents thought this would not affect their assessment of the seriousness of the killing, but the remainder were evenly divided – 14 said it aggravated the offence because it reflected a recklessness on the killer's part, whereas 12 treated it as mitigation on the basis that the killer would probably not have been thinking as clearly.
46. The presence of an intent to kill is usually regarded as increasing the seriousness of a homicide, and 43 respondents suggested that if the killer had stabbed his victim 20 or 30 times rather than just once the offence would be worse largely because it implied that he must have meant to kill. (One or two simply felt that the killing must have been more "frenzied".) Only one respondent thought that being out of control – which would be consistent with the infliction of 20 or 30 stab wounds – would reduce the gravity of the homicide. Higher levels of mens rea also explained why 38 respondents thought that using a gun to kill his victim would make the homicide more serious – we all appreciate that guns are lethal weapons. In addition, it would reflect a more disproportionate reaction to being punched and kicked.

Scenario G ("The Bailiff Homicide")

A man with a wife and three children of school age had been served with an eviction notice. The house had been his home for 20 years. He had lost his job and fell into substantial rent arrears. The loss of his job together with the eviction notice made him depressed. The bailiff arrived to enforce the notice but when he tried to enter the house the man shot him with a gun he was lawfully entitled to keep.

47. The use of a gun to kill may well imply an intent to do so. The fact that the defendant had been under a good deal of stress appears to be no defence, and he killed a man who was simply carrying out his job and enforcing the law. Only if the defendant was clinically depressed might he be able to avoid a murder conviction and reduce his liability to manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility.
48. Overall, this was ranked very similarly to scenario F (see Appendix II). Eleven respondents thought this was one of the three most serious scenarios, and twelve placed it in the three least serious, leaving two-thirds of respondents regarding it as falling somewhere in between. One respondent thought there should be no prosecution, yet seven regarded it as one of the worst examples of homicide. In general, it was felt that although the defendant was under considerable stress and in a sense was trying to protect his home, his act was a deliberate one and he must have known what the outcome would be. He bore considerable responsibility for his predicament and had killed an innocent victim who was merely trying to do his job. Any sympathy for him should therefore be limited.
49. If the defendant was clinically depressed when he killed, 52 respondents thought the crime less serious and the sentence should be adjusted so as to give him treatment rather than punishment, although at the same time there would be a need to protect the public from him. Eight respondents suggested there should be no prosecution.

Scenario H ("The Brooding Jealous Husband")

A man was told by his wife that as soon as their children had left home she would leave him and live with another man whom she'd known for many years. He brooded on this for four weeks and then killed her by poisoning her tea. He said he couldn't bear the thought of her being with another man, and psychiatrists reported that he suffered from an extreme form of jealousy.

50. The fact that the husband brooded and used poison to kill his wife would almost certainly be construed as implying premeditation – a deliberate, intentional killing. Her statement that she was going to leave him would surely be inadequate as sufficient provocation – his reaction to it seems very disproportionate – and he would probably be convicted of murder. If his extreme form of jealousy represented a mental disorder recognised by the psychiatric profession, he may have a partial defence of diminished responsibility.
51. Almost half (28) the respondents placed this amongst the three most serious scenarios and only six located it in the three least serious, one of whom recommended no prosecution. Twelve or thirteen – one was unsure – respondents treated this as one of the most serious homicides. Imprisonment was by far the most commonly suggested sentence, but there were significant variations in this (see Appendix III). There was one recommendation for the death penalty and 24 suggested life sentences. Other suggestions reflected broad differences in the length of the term, and a minority of respondents thought the defendant needed help rather than punishment.
52. Many respondents were suspicious of the idea that the killer's extreme jealousy might represent some form of mental/psychiatric disorder and many were reluctant to conclude that he might thereby deserve some sympathy/mitigation. However, more than half (36) said it would reduce the seriousness of the offence – and a small minority would even decline to prosecute in these circumstances.

Scenario I ("The Mercy Killing")

A man had nursed his terminally-ill wife for several years but eventually gave in to her regular requests that he should "put her out of it", and he smothered her with a pillow.

53. Mercy killing, of course, usually contains all the ingredients necessary for a murder conviction, and yet in practice defendants frequently escape a mandatory life sentence on the basis of diminished responsibility. The victim's consent is no defence (partial or complete) in law.
54. Predictably, this scenario was generally regarded as the least serious. No less than 58 of the 62 respondents placed it in the three least serious scenarios (47 treated it as the least serious of the ten). According to 35 respondents, certainly where the victim (whilst compos mentis) asked to be "put out of her misery", the husband should not be prosecuted. No-one thought it was in the "top three". Only 14 respondents favoured imprisonment, and 11 of these thought the term should be measured in single figures.
55. The victim's request to die was identified by 41 respondents (66.1%) as an important factor, and 26 of these thought there should be no prosecution. On the other hand, nine of the 35 respondents who advocated no prosecution did not treat the request as significant, and their views would not have altered even if the deceased had not made the request. The other apparently significant factors were the husband's good motive (24 respondents mentioned this), and the woman's poor quality of life (there were 13 references to this). Four respondents said that the defendant ought not to have been put in the position of having to decide whether to comply with his wife's request; the decision ought to be taken or carried out by someone else. Three respondents expressed concern that the law would be open to abuse if it adopted a particularly lenient approach to mercy killing – i.e. if there was no prosecution at all.
56. In keeping with their views on other scenarios, respondents said they would be even more sympathetic if the husband became mentally ill (e.g. clinically depressed), which would point either to no prosecution at all or a lesser (frequently non-custodial) sentence.
57. These responses are very much in keeping with those received in the 1995 survey which included the following remarkably similar scenario:-

A woman was terminally ill and in great pain. She had been begging her husband to "put her out of her misery" for months. Eventually, he gave in to her request and suffocated her whilst she was asleep."

58. In both surveys the majority of respondents felt there should be no prosecution for any kind of homicide (51% in the 1995 survey and 59.7% in 2003). The 1995 respondents gave the scenario an average rating of 3.5. Similarly, more than half the respondents in each survey placed it last in order of seriousness in the scenarios they considered.^[24] Three respondents in the 2003 survey recommended sentences of at least 10 but less than 15 years' imprisonment, whereas no-one in the 1995 study thought the husband should receive a sentence of more than 9 years in prison. The 1995 survey also found the same factors being most frequently cited as influential in respondents' assessments of the seriousness of the situation.

Scenario J1 ("The Cuckolded Husband")

A man whose wife had had a series of affairs with other men, decided to kill her if she had another affair. Soon afterwards, he discovered she was having a further affair and he strangled her to death. Psychiatrists reported that he was not mentally ill.

59. This scenario reflects a prima facie case of murder. There is ample indication of a premeditated killing. The fact that his wife had another affair would surely not be treated as adequate provocation, and there was no evidence of mental illness.
60. The respondents' ranking of this scenario was similar to that of scenario H ("the jealous husband") – almost half thought it was one of the three most serious scenarios and only seven placed it in the bottom three. At least 27 respondents felt it was one of the worst possible homicides; two advocated the death penalty and a further 20 recommended life imprisonment. (In contrast, one respondent suggested a sentence of just six months' imprisonment.) The features of the scenario which were most frequently cited as significant were the premeditation and the fact that the husband had other options – he ought simply to have left his wife. Her behaviour was usually regarded as a wholly inadequate reason for killing her. Those who were a little more sympathetic towards the husband described the case as "sad" as well as bad.

Scenario J2 ("The Taunted Husband")

Suppose instead that when he discovered she was having an affair he confronted her and she taunted him about his sexual inadequacy – whereupon he lost his temper and killed her.

61. In this variation of the original scenario, the wife's taunt may constitute some provocation, and it appears the husband may well have lost his self-control within the law's interpretation of this. The main query is probably whether killing her reflects an over-reaction.
62. Just over half (33 of the 62) of all respondents thought J2 was less serious than the original scenario, whereas only three took the opposite view. There was no significant difference between the replies of male or female respondents. The primary reason given by the majority for regarding J2 as less serious was that the husband reacted spontaneously to his wife's taunt, although they varied as to the degree to which it did so – several of them commented that there was probably still an intent to kill.
63. None of the respondents felt that reversing the sexual roles of the parties would affect their judgment of the seriousness of the scenario.

Offence Groups

64. In common with the 1995 national survey, respondents experienced considerable difficulty in allocating the ten original scenarios into offence groups. Indeed, four respondents could not make any positive suggestions.
65. No apparent patterns or trends in respondents' views on this have been discerned; in other words, there was no evidence that respondents with particular characteristics tended to have distinctive opinions on the homicide offences which they would like the law to recognise. The number of suggested offences varied from one to nine: the mean average was four^[25] and the mode was three.^[26] Nor was there any clear pattern in the criteria used to group scenarios. Since the scenarios were drafted so succinctly it is impossible to get a clear picture of exactly what happened, but it might be argued that a distinction should be made according to the presence (or absence) of premeditation.^[27] On this basis, scenarios A, E, H and J would be grouped together, although it may be that other scenarios (such as G) might – the wording is silent but is not inconsistent with premeditation – also be included. None of the respondents placed scenarios A, E, H and J in an offence by themselves, but 30 respondents put at least three of them together in a group. Sometimes respondents combined premeditation with the presence or absence of any mitigating factors. Thus, premeditation but no mitigation ranked more highly than premeditation plus mitigation, and that in turn ranked more highly than spur-of-the-moment killing regardless of mitigation.
66. Others focussed instead on the context of the offence and the identity of the parties – for example, distinguishing domestic from non-domestic homicides, killing children or killing to protect children.^[28] In this latter respect, offences were apparently distinguished more on the basis of the contextual variations rather than variations in gravity or blameworthiness.
67. Many of the scenarios contained an element of provocation – some much more clearly so than others. But only two, scenarios C and F, reflected some possible degree of self-defence/prevention of crime. Interestingly, seven respondents suggested a group consisting of precisely these two scenarios and a further 16 included scenarios C and F in a larger offence group.

The Mandatory Life Sentence

68. Of the 62 respondents, 39 (62.9%) said they did not favour a mandatory penalty for what are regarded as the most serious criminal homicides. Of course, the views as to what should constitute the most serious homicides vary – the comments received in this survey broadly confirmed the results of the 1995 national survey which highlighted factors such as premeditation, torturing victims before death, and killing child victims - but the majority of respondents felt that even within this category of the most serious homicides there will inevitably be sufficient variations in gravity and heinousness that the judge ought to be able to reflect the more precise degree of seriousness in the sentence imposed.
69. Three respondents who supported a mandatory sentence for the most serious homicides suggested that the appropriate sentence would be one of "natural life" imprisonment. Two other respondents expressed concerns that the sentence should be determined by a small panel rather than a single judge.

General Comments

70. The respondents in this survey mirrored those in the 1995 national survey (1) in recognising marked variations in seriousness between different homicide scenarios, and (2) in having considerable difficulty in allocating scenarios to offence groups. In this latter respect, they struggled to identify what they thought should be the criteria for distinguishing between homicide offences and the precise boundaries between them.
71. There were no apparent variations in the responses of the two groups of respondents. Although they had talked briefly about the case in which they had been personally involved, the SAMM respondents appeared to adopt a similarly analytical approach to the scenarios to that adopted by the main sample of respondents, and their views did not reveal any vindictiveness or higher level of sentencing.
72. Not surprisingly, some respondents prima facie contradicted themselves in that their ranking of the ten original scenarios towards the latter stages of the interviews did not always fully accord with the responses they had given earlier.^[29] However, as indicated earlier in this report, the pilot study which preceded the 1995 survey suggested that people sometimes change their views as they spend more time thinking about the different situations and circumstances in which homicides are committed. Nevertheless, the ranking of scenarios by ten respondents was entirely consistent with their earlier comments on them individually and a further 14 respondents revealed a high level of consistency.
73. Whilst the ranking of scenarios as asset out in Appendix II reveals a broad range of opinions, one or two general patterns of responses can be discerned. There was undeniably widespread condemnation of the killer in scenario E (the contract killer), and a good deal of sympathy and support for the mercy killer in scenario I, albeit that many respondents would be less understanding if, for example, there was no desire to die expressed by the victim. As reflected in the mean ranking scores as well as in the earlier discussions, the remaining eight scenarios were frequently viewed as of intermediate seriousness. Some of these eight were more serious than others, but they were all distinctly less serious than scenario E and markedly more serious than scenario I. Perhaps not surprisingly, some respondents volunteered the observation that hardly any of the scenarios illustrated what they regarded as the really serious criminal homicides, with the obvious exception of scenario E, implying that most of the scenarios contained a mixture of mitigating and aggravating features which, to varying degrees, counterbalanced each other.
74. There appears to be widespread recognition that provocation mitigates the seriousness of a homicide; respondents commonly expressed sympathy and empathy for those who react emotionally to a stimulus, either through anger or fear or (cumulative) stress. A loss of self-control (in the Duffy^[30] sense) does not seem to be particularly important, and even an element of premeditation will not automatically have an especially damning effect on the perceived level of seriousness.
75. Similarly, it is evident from comments on scenarios C and F that many respondents refrained from unreservedly condemning those who killed in self-defence even though it was very arguable that disproportionate force had been used by the killer. Homicides in this category often involve killers who are emotionally aroused, they are focussed on the need to protect (themselves and/or others) and they are quite likely to be incensed by the attack. If they are subsequently thought to have over-reacted, that should not be tolerated but neither should it warrant the full condemnation of the law: a balance has to be struck between the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The argument for a tough response from the law in an attempt to deter others did not generally feature in respondents' minds.
76. What remains unclear is whether and under what conditions the presence of mitigation in the form of provocation or self-defence (albeit using excessive force) should be reflected in the recognition of separate (lesser) offences
77. The presence of a mental abnormality in the killer at the critical time usually led to a more sympathetic opinion. Several respondents expressed some cynicism or scepticism about the reliability of psychiatric evidence of this nature, but even so respondents tended to accept that if the evidence was clear and unequivocal then a different approach is called for from the criminal justice system. Treatment, help and rehabilitation should be the priorities rather than punishment. Not only did this merit a reduction in liability, but in many cases it was suggested it would be inappropriate to prosecute or at least think very carefully before doing so.
78. It is clear from the earlier discussion of responses to each scenario and from the figures shown in Appendix II that respondents revealed considerable differences of opinion as to the appropriate sentences to be imposed. These variations of opinion were apparent not only with respect to individual scenarios but also in the sentencing philosophy and policy they advocated. Some favoured a retributive or just deserts approach, whereas others looked for a rehabilitative response from the penal system. Whichever policy was advocated, however, protection of the public was a common concern. Many felt this should be achieved through imprisonment, while others expressed reservations about the value of this particular option.

ANNEX 1

Respondents' sex

Male: 25 (3 SAMM)

Female: 37 (12 SAMM)

Respondents' age

Aged 18 to 24: 5 (0 SAMM)

25 to 34: 12 (2 SAMM)

35 to 44: 14 (2 SAMM)

45 to 54: 11 (4 SAMM)

55 to 64: 12 (4 SAMM)

65 and over: 8 (3 SAMM)

Respondents' marital circumstances

Single: 16 (3 SAMM)

Married: 27 (6 SAMM)

Cohabiting: 4 (1 SAMM)

Divorced: 7 (0 SAMM)

Separated: 1 (0 SAMM)

Widowed: 7 (5 SAMM)

Respondents' domestic circumstances

Living Alone: 18 (5 SAMM)

Living with Others: 44 (10 SAMM)

Respondents' family details

Have Children: 43 (13 SAMM)

Have No Children: 19 (2 SAMM)

Have Grandchildren: 17 (7 SAMM)

Have No Grandchildren: 45 (8 SAMM)

Respondents' ethnic grouping

White UK: 37 (10 SAMM)

White Irish: 2 (1 SAMM)

Black Caribbean: 6 (1 SAMM)

Black African: 4 (0 SAMM)

Indian: 4 (0 SAMM)

Chinese: 2 (0 SAMM)

Bangladeshi: 1 (0 SAMM)

Pakistani: 1 (0 SAMM)

Other: 5 (3 SAMM)

Respondents' religious affiliations

Christian: 43 (11 SAMM)

Muslim: 3 (0 SAMM)

Hindu: 2 (0 SAMM)

Sikh: 1 (0 SAMM)

Jewish: 1 (0 SAMM)

Buddhist: 1 (0 SAMM)

Atheist: 5 (2 SAMM)

Agnostic: 2 (1 SAMM)

Other: 1 (1 SAMM)

None: 3 (0 SAMM)

Respondents' occupation

Professional: 14

Administration: 9

Clerical: 4

Manual: 7

Unemployed 3

Housewife/mother: 4

Student: 5

Retired 16

ANNEX 2

Ranking of scenarios (with the most serious in the "first three" and the least serious in the "last three")

A: "The Battered Wife" F: "The Argument"

17 in first three 12 in first three

23 in middle four 35 in middle four

21 in last three 14 in last three

mean ranking score: 5.74 mean ranking score: 5.57

B: "Camplin" G: "The Bailiff"

8 in first three 11 in first three

28 in middle four 38 in middle four

25 in last three 12 in last three

mean ranking score: 6.66 mean ranking score: 5.57

C1: "The Attempted Rape of Daughter" H: "The Brooding Jealous Husband"

4 in first three 28 in first three

39 in middle four 27 in middle four

18 in last three 6 in last three

mean ranking score: 6.52 mean ranking score: 4.38

D1: "The Baby Killing I: "The Mercy Killing"

28 in first three 0 in first three

18 in middle four 3 in middle four

15 in last three 58 in last three

mean ranking score: 4.38 mean ranking score: 9.51

E: "The Contract Killing" J1: "The Cuckolded Husband"

56 in first three 29 in first three

4 in middle four 25 in middle four

1 in last three 7 in last three

mean ranking score: 1.52 mean ranking score: 4.31

Bar Chart showing Ranking of Scenarios

ANNEX 3

RECOMMENDED SENTENCES BY RESPONDENTS' SEX

Scenario A: "The Battered Wife"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	0	2 (5.4%)	2 (3.2%)
Psychiatric disposal	2 (8%)	3 (8.1%)	5 (8.1%)
Non-custodial sentence	6 (24%)	5 (13.5%)	11 (17.7%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	1 (4%)	4 (10.8%)	5 (8.1%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	2 (8%)	5 (13.5%)	7 (11.3%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	7 (28%)	12 (32.4%)	19 (30.6%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	3 (12%)	5 (13.5%)	8 (12.9%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	1 (4%)	0	1 (1.6%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	2 (8%)	0	2 (3.2%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	1 (4%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (3.2%)

Comments on these figures, and all those in the remaining tables, must inevitably be cautious because of the smallness of the numbers. Although a larger proportion of male respondents preferred a life sentence, fewer males favoured a custodial sentence.

Scenario B: "Camplin"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	0	1 (2.7%)	1 (1.6%)
Psychiatric disposal	3 (12%)	8 (21.6%)	11 (17.7%)
Non-custodial sentence	3 (12%)	2 (5.4%)	5 (8.1%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	4 (16%)	4 (10.8%)	8 (12.9%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' Imprisonment	5 (20%)	6 (16.7%)	11 (17.7%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	4 (16%)	10 (27%)	14 (22.6%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	5... (20%)	5 (13.5%)	10 (16.1%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	0	0	0
Life imprisonment with release on licence	1 (4%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (3.2%)

(All 5 male respondents recommended sentences of at least 10 but less than 15 years' imprisonment.

The numbers of male respondents who favoured a determinate prison sentence were fairly evenly divided as to the length of the term, whereas more of their female counterparts recommended an average term (5 to 10 years).

Scenario C1: "The Attempted Rape of Daughter"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	4 (16%)	6 (16.7%)	10 (16.1%)
Psychiatric disposal	0	0	0
Non-custodial sentence	7 (28%)	8 (21.6%)	15 (24.2%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	2 (8%)	5 (13.5%)	7 (11.3%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	3 (12%)	9 (24.3%)	12 (19.4%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	6 (24%)	5 (13.5%)	11 (17.7%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	2 ((8%)	3 ((8.1%)	5 (8.1%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	0	0	0
"Natural life" imprisonment	1 (4%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (3.2.%)

(In the case of both male and female respondents, all recommendations were for not more than 15 years' imprisonment.

Whilst a slightly higher proportion of female respondents favoured a custodial sentence (62.2% compared to 56%), those male respondents who recommended imprisonment favoured terms of marginally greater length.

Scenario C2: "The Husband and the Attempted Rape of Daughter"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	0	1 (2.8%)	1 (1.8%)
Psychiatric disposal	0	0	0
Non-custodial sentence	1 (4.8%)	4 (11.1%)	5 (8.8%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.8%)	1 (1.8%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	2 (9.5%)	1 (2.8%)	3 (5.3%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	5 (23.8%)	1 (2.8%)	6 (10.5%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	7 (33.3%)	11 (30.6%)	18 (31.6%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	0	4 (11.1%)	4 (7%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	3 (14.3%)	6 (16.7%)	9 (15.8%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	3 (14.3%)	7 (19.4%)	10 (17.5%)

NB. 5 respondents did not make a specific recommendation as to sentence in this variation of the scenario.

Although a slightly greater proportion of male respondents proposed a prison sentence, overall female respondents were just as robust, if not more so, in their sentencing recommendations.

Scenario D1: "The Baby Killing"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	0	2 (5.4%)	2 (3.2%)
Psychiatric disposal	1 (4%)	4 (10.8%)	5 (8.1%)	5 (8.1%)
Non-custodial sentence	1 (4%)	0	1 (1.6%)	1 (1.6%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	1 (4%)	0	1 (1.6%)	1 (1.6%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	2 (8%)	3 (8.1%)	5 (8.1%)	5 (8.1%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	6 (24%)	5 (13.5%)	11 (17.7%)	11 (17.7%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	3 (12%)	6 (16.2%)	9 (14.5%)	9 (14.5%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	4 (16%)	4 (10.8%)	8 (12.9%)	8 (12.9%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	4 (16%)	7 (18.9%)	11 (17.7%)	11 (17.7%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	1 (4%)	6 (16.2%)	7 (11.3%)	7 (11.3%)
Death penalty	2 (8%)	0	2 (3.2%)	2 (3.2%)

A greater proportion of female respondents overall favoured more lenient (i.e. not even imprisonment) than their male counterparts – though the figures are obviously very small.

Scenario D2: "The Noisy Neighbour"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	0	1 (2.8%)	1 (1.7%)
Psychiatric disposal	1 (4.2%)	1 (2.8%)	2 (3.3%)
Non-custodial sentence	0	0	0
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	0	0
At least 2 years but less than 5 years' imprisonment	3 (12.5%)	5 (13.9%)	8 (13.3%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	5 (20.8%)	10 (27.8%)	15 (25%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	7 (29.1%)	11 (30.6%)	18 (30%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	3 (12.5%)	2 (5.6%)	5 (8.3%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	4 (16.7%)	3 (8.3%)	7 (11.7%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	1 (4.2%)	3 (8.3%)	4 (6.7%)

NB one male respondent did not make a specific recommendation to this variation of the scenario.

There are no obvious contrasts in the recommended sentences between male and female respondents here.

Scenario E: "The Contract Killer"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
At least 10 but less than 15 years' imprisonment	1 (4%)	5 (13.5%)	6 (9.7%)
At least 15 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	1 (4%)	3 (8.1%)	4 (6.5%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	0	3 (8.1%)	3 (4.8%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	7 (28%)	7 (18.9%)	14 (22.6%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	10 (40 %)	18 (48.6%)	28 (45.2%)
Death penalty	6 (24%)	1 (2.7%)	7 (11.3%)

This was generally regarded as the most serious of the scenarios and these figures indicate that respondents felt this was clearly a particularly nasty homicide. The principal contrast here is that a greater proportion of male respondents recommended tougher sentences than their female counterparts, although this is largely due to the 6 men who favoured the death penalty.

Scenario F: "The Argument"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
Psychiatric disposal	0	0	0
Non-custodial sentence	1 (4.3%)	2 (5.6%)	3 (5.1%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.8%)	1 (1.7%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	2 (8.7%)	2 (5.6%)	4 (6.8%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	10 (43.5%)	6 (16.7%)	16 (27.1%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	6 (26.1%)	13 (36.1%)	19 (32.2%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	1 (4.3%)	1 (2.8%)	2 (3.4%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	3 (13%)	6 (16.7%)	9 (15.3%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	0	5 (13.9%)	5 (8.5%)

NB 3 respondents did not make specific recommendations in this scenario.

Slightly smaller proportions of the male respondents favoured tougher prison sentences than female respondents, especially from terms of 10 years and upwards.

Scenario G: "The Bailiff"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	1 (4%)	0	1 (1.6%()
Psychiatric disposal	0	3 (8.1%)	3 (4.8%)
Non-custodial sentence	0	2 (5.4%)	2 (3.2%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	0	0
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	2 (8%)	3 (8.1%)	5 (8.1%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	6 (24%)	9 (24.3%)	15 (24.2%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	9 (36%)	14 (37.8%)	23 (37.1%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	2 (8%)	1 (2.7%)	3 (4.8%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	4 (16%)	4 (10.8%)	8 (12.9%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	1 (4%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (3.2%)

A larger proportion of female respondents (13.5%, compared to 4%) did not favour imprisonment: otherwise these statistics are generally comparable.

Scenario H: "The Brooding Jealous Husband"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	0	1 (2.7%)	1 (1.6%)
Psychiatric disposal	1 (4%)	2 (5.4%)	3 (4.8%)
Non-custodial sentence	0	0	0
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.7%)	1 (1.6%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.7%)	1 (1.6%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	5 (20%)	4 (10.8%)	9 (14.5%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	6 (24%)	9 (24.3%)	15 (24.2%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	3 (12%)	2 (5.4%)	5 (8.1%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	5 (20%)	8 (21.6%)	13 (21%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	4 (16%)	9 (24.3%)	13 (21%)
Death penalty	1 (4%)	0	1 (1.6%)

The one obvious observation here is that, with one exception, male respondents favoured at least an average term (5 years minimum) of imprisonment, whereas female respondents were slightly more evenly spread of the range of possible sentences.

Scenario I: "The Mercy Killing"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
No prosecution	9 (36%)	28 (75.7%)	37 (59.7%)
Psychiatric disposal	0	0	0
Non-custodial sentence	9 (36%)	2 (5.4%)	11 (17.7%)
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	1 (4%)	1 (2.7%)	2 (3.2%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	3 (12%)	1 (2.7%)	4 (6.5%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	2 (8%)	3 (8.1%)	5 (8.1%)
At least 10 but les than 15 years' imprisonment	1 (4%)	2 (5.4%)	3 (4.8%)

Whilst respondents generally regarded this as the least serious scenario, more female respondents felt there should be no prosecution at all, whereas more male respondents favoured prosecution followed by a non-custodial sentence.

Scenario J1: "The Cuckolded Husband"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
Psychiatric disposal	0	0	0
Non-custodial sentence	0	0	0
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.9%)	1(1.7%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.9%)	1 (1.7%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	5 (20%)	6 (17.1%)	11 (18.3%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	7 (28%)	13 (37.1%)	20 (33.3%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	1 (4%)	3 (8.6%)	4 (6.7%)
Life imprisonment with release on licence	7 (28%)	5 (14.3%)	12 (20%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	3 (12%)	6 (17.1%)	9 (15%)
Death penalty	2 (8%)	0	2 (3.3%)

NB Two respondents did not give a specific recommendation to this variation of the scenario.

The one obvious comment is that male respondents were generally a little tougher with their proposed sentences than females, though the difference is not great and the figures are small.

J2: "The Taunted Husband"

Sentence	Male respondents	Female respondents	All respondents
Psychiatric disposal	0	1 (2.8%)	1 (1.6%)
Non-custodial sentence	0	0	0
Less than 2 years' imprisonment	0	2 (5.6%)	2 (3.3%)
At least 2 but less than 5 years' imprisonment	0	1 (2.8%)	1 (1.6%)
At least 5 but less than 10 years' imprisonment	13 (52%)	14 (38.9%)	27 (44.3%)
At least 10 but less than 20 years' imprisonment	8 (32%)	11 (30.6%)	19 (31.1%)
20 years' imprisonment or more	0	0	0
Life imprisonment with release on licence	4 (16)	3 (8.3%)	7 (11.5%)
"Natural life" imprisonment	0	4 (11.1%)	4 (6.6%)

NB One respondent did not offer a specific recommendation to this variation of the scenario.

Overall, there are no obvious contrasts between male and female respondents' recommendations.

Ý
Ü   Þ