-
Posts
-
I’ve just watched a film called “Let him have it” on Film Four. It is the story of Derek Bentley, who was hanged in HM Prison Wandsworth on 28th January 1953 at the age of 19.
He was convicted of murder and in those days the mandatory sentence was that of hanging.
A powerful film that seemed to revolve around the meaning of the words allegedly spoken by Bentley to his partner in crime, Chris Craig (aged 16). Did “Let him have it, Chris” mean ‘shoot him’ or did it mean ‘give up the gun’???
Interestingly enough, Bentley was posthumously pardoned in 1998 when his death penalty was set aside. However, there remains a strong body of opinion that he was guilty and was rightly hanged.
What do you think? Should he have been hanged or maybe even found “Not Guilty”?
Don,t get me started on this one PB. :evil: I,ve seen that film too. The fact remains that Derek Bentley was mentally handicapped. When he shouted to his mate to “let him have it” he probably meant to let the copper have the gun, not to kill him. And even IF he did mean shoot him, which I doubt, Derek didn,t kill anyone. He did NOT commit a crime, his mate did. Therefore to hang him for something he didn,t do was grossly unfair and a travesty of justice. I,m glad he was awarded his posthumous pardon. I was one of many who signed a petition for that reason.
It must be terrifying for anyone going to the gallows but can you imagine how much more terrifying it must be when you don,t even understand what your supposed to have done in the first place?
With great respect Bat, but Derek Bentley wasn’t “mentally handicapped” as we understand it, even by today’s standards. He was “simple” and was said to have a mental age of 11 – at the age of 19. Nevertheless he had a clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong, and knew that his actions in burgling the premises was utterly wrong. Throughout all the appeals and campaigns, it was always the case that he had this mental capacity to know right from wrong.
What, it is said, won him the second appeal (and pardon) was the fact that his acomplice – who was only 16 at the time – was under the legal age to suffer the death penalty whereas Bentley was executed. This in spite of the fact that Bentley didn’t actually fire any shots at Police, much less directly and personally kill one ans in spite of the jury’s plea for clemency.
BTW, this plea was a total waste of time because the MANDATORY penalty for his crime was death by hanging. The Judge had no choice but to sentence him to death.
Yes it is true that he was subsequently pardoned. However, I suspect that this was more a nod to the pressure of public opinion by a weak government anxious to bolster its own popularity, rather than to an acknowledgement of the doctrine of “common enterprise” that prevailed at that time. Although he was pardoned (i.e. forgiven) there was no statement made to the effect that he was never there at all and took no part in the crime.
Equally, can you imagine the howls of public outrage there would have been if the politicians and the Judiciary of the day had released Bentley saying that there was “no case to answer” after a Police oficer had been callously murdered in the line of duty???
If at the age of 19, a person has the mental age of an 11 year old, that makes them mentally handicapped. Derek may have had some understanding of right and wrong, and knew that burgling properites was wrong. However he was dragged along by his “mate” who saw this simple lad as an easy target and took unfair advantage of his reduced mental capacity.
It was HIM who shot PC Sidney Miles, not Derek. I can only imagine how terrifed Derek must have been to be sent to prison.
Yes his mate was 16 below the age at which he could have hung thats correct. In this case he should have been held maybe at a young offenders institution, if such places existed then, until he was of the legal age to pay for HIS crime.
The mandatory sentence for the crime commited was death by hanging yes, but it shouldn,t have been Derek who was hung because Derek didn,t shoot anyone.
Yes an innocent policeman was callously murdered, but not by Derek.
To hang anyone for a crime they didn,t commit is a travesty of justice. To hang a mentally handicapped child, because mentally that was what Derek was, is just beyond cruel. It was only right and proper that he recieved a full posthumous pardon.
Actually, not so Bat. As the law stood at the time (not as it NOW stands) Bentley was illiterate and of low intelligence, almost borderline retarded. However, he was not suffering from epilepsy at the time of the alleged offence, that he was not a “feeble-minded person” under the Mental Deficiency Acts and that he was sane and fit to plead and stand trial.
English law at the time did not recognise the concept of diminished responsibility due to retarded development, though it existed in Scottish law (it was introduced to England by the Homicide Act 1957).
Criminal insanity – where the accused is unable to distinguish right from wrong – was then the only medical defence to murder. Bentley, while suffering severe debilitation, was not insane.
Chris Craig would not have faced execution if found guilty, as he was below the age of 18 when PC Miles was shot. Bentley on the other hand was not.
The key issue at their trial was that the doctrine of ‘constructive malice’ meant that a charge of manslaughter was not an option, as the “malicious intent” of the armed robbery was transferred to the shooting….. hence they were BOTH charged with murder.
Bentley’s best defence would have been that he was effectively under arrest when PC Miles was killed; however, this was only after an attempt to escape, during which a police officer had been wounded and the Court (and the jury) wouldn’t accept this as a valid defence.
Bentley was quite rightly convicted (as the law stood in the early 1950’s) and therefore quite rightly and lawfully executed.
It’s interesting to note that at his first posthumous appeal in 1966, the finding of guilt for murder was upheld by the Court of Appeal – although the sentence itself was not.
It was only after some seriously heavy political interference by Tony Blair, in his constant quest for popularity, was he fully pardoned in 1998.
Should the killers of Jamie Bulger have hung ?
@pete wrote:
Should the killers of Jamie Bulger have hung ?
Yes they should …… save for two rather major points. Capital punishment had long been abolished by the time they committed their crimes and secondly they were both below the age of 18 when the murder was committed.
So much as many would like to legally choke the life out of them, it simply wasn’t (and still isn’t) an option.
How could Derek have been rightfully and lawfully executed? I appreciate that this was the law back then and not now, however his execution for a crime he did not commit was wrong. He didn,t kill anyone. His “mate” did. An innocent person was sent to the gallows.
Yes Derek was sane, but he was still mentally retarded, even though that wasn,t recognised then, and as such wouldn,t have understood what the hell was going on.
As for Jamie Bulgers killers pete, at one time I may have said yes to hanging them. However I since think that maybe they should have been incarcerated for LIFE. ie carried out of prison in a box.
Bat dear … this is the entire point isn’t it? Bentley was convicted, sentenced and executed pursuant to the laws that were applicable THEN – not those that apply now.
The law (as it was then) made him equally guilty of murder as his accomplice Craig – even though Craig did the actual shooting. It was enough for Bentley to be there as a willing participant in the burgulary (and therefore in the murder) to secure his convition – rightly so im my opinion.
The thing that I do find somewhat ironic is the contrast between all those who set out to describe the terrible punishment that they’d inflict on say a child molester, and yet when it comes to cold bloodedly murdering a Police officer, acting in the course of his duty, suddenly they change their tune and want the killers to go unpunished.
It’s not really an issue any more except for with the relatives of the people involved. I can’t get worked up about it. It’s like the soldiers shot for cowardice during the First World War or the unpopular officers shot by their own men under the cover of enemy fire – it’s history.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!