The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in the context of utilitarian and retributive theories on punishment Introduction The WritePass Journal

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in the context of utilitarian and retributive theories on punishment Introduction Introduction The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in the context of utilitarian and retributive theories on punishment Introduction was passed by the UK Parliament in order to introduce measures conducive to the reform of the criminal justice system. Amongst the most important measures introduced by the Act, it is possible to mention the greater amount of discretion given to the court system in order to grant conditional discharges to youths entering a guilty plea for first offences as well as the tougher conditionalities imposed through the expansion of the youth rehabilitation order system (Sprack, 2012: 9). In addition, the legislation expands the provisions made for the punishment of hate crimes and makes ‘squatting’ a criminal offence. Furthermore, it severely curtails the scope under which legal aid may be granted. In this essay I will concentrate on analysing the legal provisions of LAPSO from the standpoint of the retributive and utilitarian theories of punishment. Summary and background Section 142 of LAPSO creates new offences to cover those who have a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon with them in a public place or school premises and go on to threaten a person with it in such a way as to cause immediate risk of serious physical harm to that person. The Government’s aim in creating the new offences was set out by Ministers during the passage of the legislation through Parliament: Knives on our streets are a social scourge. That is why the unlawful possession of a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon is already a serious criminal offence carrying a maximum custodial sentence of four years. Clause 1131 goes further than those possession offences. Our aim, through the clause, is to send a clear message to those in possession of a bladed or pointed article or offensive weapon, that if they then go on to threaten and cause an immediate risk of serious physical harm to another person they can expect an automatic custodial sentence (Hansard 13 October 2011: Column 803). The new offences are designed to strengthen the existing legislative framework by targeting behaviour that amounts to more than simple possession, but does not go so far as resulting in the injury of the victim (for which other existing offences would apply). The offences under this section will apply in England and Wales; be triable either way, and subject to a maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment on indictment (or, where the offender is under 18, a 24 month Detention and Training Order (by virtue of the Sentencing Act 2000, s101(1)). Key to meeting the aim of the provisions is that the courts are required to impose a minimum custodial sentence of 6 months for adults or a detention and training order of at least 4 months’ duration for 16 and 17 year olds (unless there are particular circumstances relating to the offence or offender which would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances). Section 143 of LAPSO creates a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, punishable by up to five years imprisonment. Dangerous driving is currently an offence under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (The â€Å"RTA 1988†) and attracts a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment. In addition, causing death by dangerous driving under section 1 of the RTA 1988 attracts a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. There has long been pressure for change in road traffic law to close a perceived ‘gap’ in sentences between the current two year maximum for dangerous driving and the 14 year maximum for causing death by dangerous driving. The new offence responds to road safety campaign groups, victims and their representatives who have called for increased sentences to be made available for those who cause serious injury by driving dangerously. Parliament responded to need to protect the public by instituting the new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving targets, extending sentencing powers at the most serious end of the spectrum of dangerous driving incidents. That will be reflected in the higher maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. The new offence will be committed when a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place causing serious injury to another person. In England and Wales, the test for ‘serious injury’ will be the same as for ‘grievous bodily harm’. For the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, grievous bodily harm (GBH) has been given the accepted definition of ‘really serious harm’. The offence will apply to Scotland as to England and Wales. However, as Scottish law does not contain the same definition of GBH, the test for serious injury will be the same as that applied by Scottish courts to â€Å"severe injury’ as that applied to â€Å"severe injury† in agg ravated assault cases. The tests proposed will ensure that there is parity as to the severity of harm required in order for the offence to be made out (LAPSO, 2012, Section143). The new offence will be triable either way and subject to a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The maximum penalty on summary conviction in England and Wales will be six months’ imprisonment or a  £5,000 fine, or both. In Scotland (due to the different allocation of business between the summary and solemn courts) the maximum penalty on summary conviction will be 12 months’ imprisonment or a  £10,000 fine, or both. In both jurisdictions, the maximum sentence on conviction on indictment will be five years’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both (LAPSO, 2012, Section 143). The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and the concepts of retributive and utilitarian punishment The concept of retributive justice is based on the assumption that stipulating a proportionate amount of punishment serves as an efficient way to deal with the spread of crime. It is assumed that when an individual offends, s/he is giving up his/her right to enjoy equal treatment (Moore, 1997: 59). Consequently, a retributive punishment is enforced in order to take away the right to equal treatment from the offender. This punishment theory is differentiated from notions of vigilante or revenge justice, since the imposition of punishment is dependent on the performance of a wrongdoing on the part of the individual, in accordance with established procedural norms (Nozick, 1981: 366). It is plain to see that the provisions of LAPSO in regards to dangerous driving and the carrying of the possession of offensive weapons have a retributive aspect in mind. The retributive notion of punishment would look at the provisions of this legislation as an instrument to rectify the advantage unfairly obtained by the perpetrator when s/he committed the crime (Whitehead and Lab, 1998: 321). It could be argued that there is a notion of responsibility which has been significantly eroded in modern society, which makes it easier for drivers to be reckless when driving and for criminals to be more audacious about carrying offensive weapons. In this context, the provisions of LAPSO are geared towards recalibrating the balance between wrongdoing and desert when ascertaining the right type of punishment. It is important to add that the retributive perspective sees punishment as a social good which redresses the economic and social effects that crime has on individuals.   From this perspective, it could be posited that retributive punishment reduces the scope for vigilante justice as society is likely to be more satisfied with the end of result of the criminal justice process; geared towards punishing those who break the norms and legislation validated by the social contract (Moore, 199 7: 55).   The sentencing philosophy which seems to guide this piece of legislation is geared towards ensuring that punishment is, at the very least, partially scaled in order to redress the infringement of rights suffered by the victims. It could be postulated that the promulgation of this provisions by Parliament adhere to the principle of retributive punishment by scaling the notion of justice to the need to ensure that the transgressor is punished in equal proportion to those who suffered from the wrongdoing (Kant in Ezorsky (ed.), 1972: 103). Utilitarianism takes a close look at the consequences generated by the actions of the offender and how these impact on a particular social group (Corlett, 2008: 19). Questions of rightness are wrongness are evaluated by utilitarianists according to a putative point of equilibrium between good and bad that arises from particulars actions undertaken by individuals.   In the context of punishment theory, this principle applies when considering whether a particular sentence would produce the greatest level of happiness for society at large.   This is of particular relevance to the punishment meted out against offenders found guilty of the crimes specified in Section 142 and 143 of LAPSO. The rationale behind the introduction of this legislation adheres to some of the parameters delineated by the utilitarianist theory of punishment. In essence, the drafters of the legislation prioritised the need to protect the population from reckless drivers and weapon-carrying criminals, which could have potentially detrimental consequences for the social order (Smith, 2008: 32).   Although the utilitarianist principle tends to look at the notion of punishment as inherently evil, inasmuch as it causes suffering for the individual who committed the offence, the retribution imposed by the legislation has to be examined within the context of the social good that derives from preventing the practice of dangerous driving and the carrying of offensive weapons (Bentham, 1948: 129). The sentencing rationale behind the legislation purports to look at the issue of crime from the standpoint of preventing potential offenders from inflicting harm upon society. By doing so, the Act ensures the happiness of the greatest number and a general reduction of harm (Smith, 2008: 30). There have been attempts to establish a middle ground between both concepts of punishment. It has been postulated that punishment should only be carried out when the implications of doing so does not produce a negative outcome (Hart in Hart (ed.), 1968: 25). Whilst this view makes provisions for question of desert and justice, as it is not intrinsically opposed to the idea of punishing crimes, it also allows room for the examination of the potential consequences of punishment. This has important societal connotations, since communities are increasingly demanding a larger amount of protection from the evils of crime (Garland, 2001: 48). It would appear that this notion provides a useful framework of reference in the evaluation of the provisions attached to the Act. Whilst adopting a distinct utilitarianist approach, the Act seems to be worded in a manner which denotes a close examination of the potential consequences of being too profligate with the amount of punishment stipulated for the offences that it deals with (Hallsworth and Lea, 2011: 157). Conclusion In conclusion, it could be argued that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 includes a measured dosage of retributive and utilitarianist notions of punishment to its sentencing philosophy. To being with, the Act scales the concept of punishment to the need to ascertain that the offender received an amount of punishment which is proportionate to the suffering caused to the victim of the crime (Kant in Ezorsky (ed.), 1972: 104). At the same time, the provisions included in the legislation also seem to have a utilitarianist perspective, inasmuch as it attempts to induce ‘the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people’ by ensuring that the Act reduces the spectrum of harm caused by offenders. The wording included in the legislation suggests that the drafters examined the potential consequences of the Act by making reference to the need to protect society from harm (Garland, 2001: 57). Nevertheless, it could be concluded that the stipulations included in the legislation are framed for the purposes of ensuring that the sentencing philosophy which underpins it is not conducive to generating unintended negative consequences for the wider societal spectrum. Bibliography Bentham, M., ‘Squatting to become a criminal offence’, Evening Standard (London), 1/5/2012 Bentham, J. (1948) The Principles of Morals and Legislation, Hafner Publishing Company, New York, NY Bowcott, O., Cost of youth crime rises to  £1.2bn a year, The Guardian, 1/12/2010 Corlett, J. (2008) Responsibility and Punishment, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY Criminal Justice Act 1988 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents Davis, M. (1992) To Make the Punishment Fit the Crime, Westview Press, Boulder, CO Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: crime and social order in contemporary society, Oxford University Press, Oxford Hallsworth, S. and Lea, J. (2011) Reconstructing Leviathan: Emerging contours of the security state, Theoretical Criminology, Volume 15, Number 2, May 2011, pp. 141-157 Hansard, 13/10/2011: Column 803 Hart, H. (1968) Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment in Hart H. (ed.) Punishment and Responsibility: Essays in the Philosophy of Law, Oxford University Press, New York, NY Hitchens, P. (2003) A Brief History of Crime, Atlantic Books, London Hudson, B. (2003) Understanding Justice: an introduction to ideas, perspectives and controversies in modern penal theory, Open University Press, Buckingham Kant, I. (1972) Justice and Punishment in Ezorsky, G. (ed.) Philosophical Perspectives on Punishment State University of New York Press, Albany, NY Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO), HMSO, London Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 -Explanatory notes www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/10/notes/contents Moore, M. (1997) Placing Blame- A General Theory of the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford Nozick, R. (1981)  Philosophical Explanations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA Prevention of Crime Act 1953 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/1-2/14/contents Road Traffic Act 1988 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents Smith, P. (2008) Punishment and culture, Chicago University of Press, Chicago, IL Sprack, J. (2012) A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure, Fourteenth Edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the Poor: the neoliberal government of social insecurity, Durham, NC Whitehead, J. and Lab, S. (1998) Juvenile Justice: An Introduction, Anderson Publishing Co., Cincinnati, OH

Conversation Using Reported Speech Lesson Plans

Conversation Using Reported Speech Lesson Plans Reported speech is also known as indirect speech and is commonly used in spoken conversations to report what others have said. A keen grasp of correct tense usage, as well as the ability to correctly shift pronouns and time expressions, is essential when using  reported speech. The use of reported speech is especially important at higher English levels. Students  are fine-tuning their communication skills to include expressing the ideas of others, as well as their own opinions. Students usually need to focus not only on the grammar involved but also on production skills. Reported speech includes some rather tricky transformations that need to be practiced repeatedly before students feel comfortable using reported speech in everyday conversations. Finally, make sure to point out that reported speech is generally used with the verbs say and tell in the past.   Hell help him with the homework. - She told me he would help me with my homework.   However, if the reporting verb is conjugated in the present tense, no reported speech changes are necessary. Im going to Seattle next week. - Peter says hes going to Seattle next week.   Lesson Outline Aim: Developing reported speech grammar and productions skills Activity: Introduction and written reporting activity, followed by spoken practice in the form of a questionnaire Level: Upper-intermediate Outline: Introduce/review reported speech by making simple statements and asking students to report what you have said. Make sure to emphasize reporting in the past (i.e., the teacher said, NOT the teacher says)Provide review sheet of principle reported speech transitions (included in lesson printout pages)Have students get into pairs and convert the reported speech paragraph into the direct speech form.Correct worksheet as a class.Ask students to divide up into new pairs and ask each other questions from the questionnaire. Remind them to take notes on what their partners say.Have students divide into new pairs and ask them to report what they have learned about the other students to their new partner (i.e., John said he had lived in Breubach for two years).Follow-up with class conversation focusing on problematic tense transformations. Reported Speech Study the following chart carefully. Notice how reported speech is one step back into the past from direct speech. Tense Quote Reported Speech present simple I play tennis on Fridays. He said he played tennis on Fridays. present continuous Theyre watching TV. She said they were watching TV. present perfect Shes lived in Portland for ten years. He told me she had lived in Portland for ten years. present perfect continuous Ive been working for two hours. He told me he had been working for two hours. past simple I visited my parents in New York. She told me she had visited her parents in New York. past continuous They were preparing dinner at 8 oclock. He told me they had been preparing dinner at 8 oclock. past perfect I had finished in time. He told me he had finished in time. past perfect continuous She had been waiting for two hours. She said she had been waiting for two hours. future with will Ill see them tomorrow. He said he would see them the next day. future with going to Were going to fly to Chicago. He told me they were going to fly to Chicago. Reported Speech Reference Time Expression Changes Time expressions such as at the moment are also changed when using reported speech. Here are some of the most common changes: at the moment / right now / now -  at that moment / at that time Were watching TV right now. - She told me they were watching TV at that time. yesterday - the previous day / the day before I bought some groceries yesterday. - He told me he had bought some groceries the previous day. tomorrow - the following day / the next day Shell be at the party tomorrow. - She told me she would be at the party the next day. Exercise 1: Put the following paragraph in the reported speech into the  conversational form using direct speech  (quotes). Peter introduced me to Jack who said he was pleased to meet me. I replied that it was my pleasure  and that I hoped Jack was enjoying his stay in Seattle. He said he thought Seattle was a beautiful city, but that it rained too much. He said that he had been staying at the Bayview Hotel for three weeks and that it hadnt stopped raining since he had arrived. Of course, he said, this wouldnt have surprised him if it hadnt been July! Peter replied that he should have brought warmer clothes. He then continued by saying that he was going to fly to Hawaii the following week, and he that he couldnt wait to enjoy some sunny weather. Both Jack and I commented that Peter was a lucky person indeed. Exercise 2: Ask your partner the following questions making sure to take good notes. After you have finished the questions, find a new partner and report what you have learned about your first partner using reported speech. What is your favorite sport and how long have you been playing/doing it?What are your plans for your next vacation?How long have you known your best friend? Can you give me a description of him/her?What kind of music do you like? Have you always listened to that kind of music?What did you use to do when you were younger that you dont do anymore?Do you have any predictions about the future?Can you tell me what you do on a typical Saturday afternoon?What were you doing yesterday at this time?Which two promises will you make concerning learning English?