Domestic murderers to face minimum 25-year sentences under Government plans

[IwantToRetire]

People who kill a partner or ex-partner at home with a knife or other weapon could face an extra 10 years in prison under plans to strengthen sentencing laws, in a bid to tackle violence against women.

For murders where a weapon is taken to the scene with intent to kill, the starting point for the minimum sentence to be served is 25 years.

But in most murders which take place in a home, the weapon – for example, a kitchen knife – is already there, meaning a lower 15-year starting point applies.

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it intends to close the 10-year gap so domestic killers face higher sentences.

More than a fifth of all murders are domestic, with women overwhelmingly the victims.

Someone convicted of murder receives a mandatory life sentence and a judge then sets a minimum term. When a gun is used, the starting point is 30 years.

Article continues at https://insidetime.org/newsround/domestic-murderers-to-face-minimum-25-year-sentences-under-government-plans/

Why does a weapon make a difference? Most men who kill women do it with their bare hands.

In legal terms a weapon makes it a very clear cut case of premeditation. It's less clear otherwise.

I've read it a few times to try and understand.

And I dont agree that there is a difference in sentencing if the bring a weapon. As if someone doesn't know what is available in the home already. Bringing a weapon doesn't mean it is any more with intent than using something you know is there.

But totally agree. Why should a woman who is strangled not be as valued for the loss of her life that a woman killed another way.

None of it makes sense.

Accept suppose that it does recognise this act of male violence should get a longer sentence than has been given in the past.

So horrible not to respect women - for all the women who have died through the violence of their partner / husband

But in terms of a woman dying a violent death because of a man she's in a relationship with, the concept of intent is just insulting.

She is still dead.

This is to be welcomed, of course; but the elephant in the room is that most of the general public believe that murder should mean life in prison; and that life should mean the same as the word means in the English language and not some perverse, weaselly idea that it's a code for only a certain number of years, which can be shortened even further at any time.

The same as with racially-motivated murders: however heinous racist motives are in deliberately taking somebody else's life, it shouldn't make any difference, as murdering anybody should mean that you don't come out of prison until you're in a box. I suppose they could demonstrate society's disgust by giving multiple life sentences, like they do in the USA, but these would obviously be symbolic in reality.

As long as there are robust measures in place to ensure that e.g. people who kill violent attackers in genuine self-defence, and those who 'help' desperate loved ones who have expressed a firm desire to die on their way, out of compassion, don't end up in the same boat, it should be the norm that murder instantly means that you will be in prison until you die - or, if it must have a numerical tariff, 125 years, reduced down to zero on 'compassionate' grounds strictly only from the second you are pronounced dead.

It’s my understanding that this change is to bring punishment for domestic violence leading to death up to the level of non-domestic violence leading to death.

Previously, men who killed their partners in the home with a weapon that was already in the home were subject to more lenient sentencing. This is because of some weird argument that if you bring a weapon from outside, this signals previous intent, which was seen as more serious than just grabbing a weapon that is to hand (so-called crime of passion).

Women’s rights campaigners have been arguing that this difference should not be there, and that men who kill their partners in circumstances that have traditionally been seen as “crimes of passion” should not be punished any differently than men who plan their murder out and purchase or acquire a weapon ahead of time.

That may affect the arguments around intent and ‘malice aforethought’ (ie such cases it’s easier for the prosecution) but that should never have been confused with the seriousness of the crime and sentencing in murders within the home.

Government announcement to increase minimum sentencing for domestic murders is ill thought out and will have unintended consequences particularly for victims who kill their abuser
Centre for Women's Justice
https://www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/news/2026/6/30/government-announcement-to-increase-minimum-sentencing-for-domestic-murders-is-ill-thought-out-and-will-have-unintended-consequences-particularly-for-victims-who-kill-their-abuser

Personally, I think that women should be able to log domestic violence with the police and that record is what should carry more weight towards premeditation. Very few men who kill their partners have not already been controlling or abusive towards them.

I don't see how this new law changes much unless it's an obvious weapon like a gun or a crossbow rather than a kitchen knife. And in those cases, a man who uses a gun or a crossbow is already going to be considered as premeditated anyway.

For some reason the first thing this thread brought to mind Robert Easom who was jailed for 16 years for severing his partner's spinal cord, leaving her permanently paralysed from the chest down be ause she had the audacity to break up with him.

The second thing is that a lot of men strangle women. One could argue a stabbing is one moment of loss of control. Strangulation is 3-5 mins of sustained determined violence.

I argree with the previous poster above their track record of domestic violence should have bearing

Please note I'm not expressing a view on whether that's right or wrong, I was simply expressing a view on what the logic behind it might be. People can obviously draw their own conclusions on whether that's justifiable or not.

life should mean the same as the word means in the English language

Yes. Sentencing is so shockingly short, this change will barely register anyway.

That Rochdale paedo grooming gang leader, the one who pimped young girls and did unthinkable things, he is now out after less than 14 years. I can hardly think of a worse crime than the stuff he's done. And there's just no way that man has been "rehabilitated".

They say the prisons are full... I can't understand it. Literally release anyone else. Free all the women and turn women's prisons into men's ones if you must, cos no woman would do what he did.

If you get sentenced to "10 years", expect to be actually locked away for 3 or 4.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5549491-change-in-law-for-domestic-homicides

because they already stop and think i better not do this because its 10 years ?

So is this before or after they let all the rapists and murderers out of jail early? Or alongside that policy? They just bounce from one thing to the next.

They were letting murderers and rapists out after serving just 50% of their sentence. Now it's 40% because of prison overcrowding and staffing problems. So, potentially, 25 years could be just 10.

https://archive.ph/uUewX

https://thecritic.co.uk/the-injustice-of-early-releases/

Typical Labour virtue signalling idiocy.

Of course we want to punish DV killers. But not many of them are going to stop and think and decide not to kill because they might get another 10 years!!

This proposal is just a sop to women and we should resist it. They'll point to this when we ask why they don't do more.

We need to PREVENT DV not just punish it when it's too late.

Keeping some of these men in jail longer may reduce the number of women who they can abuse and harm after they’re released, at least.