Harper’s Law.

[ralphy]

I think I'm reasonably au fait with our legal system and I have read the thread throughout, nowhere can I see anything that alludes to unspecified decisions being taken by people with the interests of criminals and violent offenders at heart.
Why not explain who you mean?

If laws are made which put the interests of criminals and violent offenders before those of victims then obviously it’s whoever introduced that particular law.
Any more you can do your own research.

I suggest you do your own research as to how laws are made and who makes them. Then you could identify who are the *'people' with the interests of criminals and violent offenders at heart.

*Specific people that is, unless you mean some vague sort of conspiracy theory concocted up amongst the HoC, HoL and the Queen.

R

[snowman]

As I told you before I know what the law says, I disagree with it though. My post was referring to the use of the 'manslaughter defence' in general not this particular case.

I know you said you did, it was to provide context to others reading it and maybe not familiar.

As I said before we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing you don't decide our laws...

The idea that a deliberate attempt to do someone harm should be considered the same as an act of carelessness resulting in the same punishment is absurd, which is what the 'manslaughter defence' is actually there to distinguish.

It also prevents juries having to find not guilty to murder if they feel there was fault, but not intent, but I guess being familiar with the law, you'd be OK with that...

M

[Saint-Just]

Now, the question in this case is whether they had the intention - I wasn't in court and I presume (but may be wrong) that you weren't either, but it would appear that there was enough doubt raised in the jury's mind about the intention for them to decide the murder conditions hadn't been met.

I agree with most of your post. However my understanding was that it is the judge who instructs the jury in regards to the charge.
As I am neither a legalese nor born into this system, I could be wrong and am happy to be corrected if I am.

[ralphy]

I agree with most of your post. However my understanding was that it is the judge who instructs the jury in regards to the charge.
As I am neither a legalese nor born into this system, I could be wrong and am happy to be corrected if I am.

The judge is there to instruct the jury as to the difference between murder and manslaughter, he's not there to influence their decision on which way they vote.

R

[oldoakknives]

I know you said you did, it was to provide context to others reading it and maybe not familiar.

As I said before we can all sleep soundly in our beds knowing you don't decide our laws...

The idea that a deliberate attempt to do someone harm should be considered the same as an act of carelessness resulting in the same punishment is absurd, which is what the 'manslaughter defence' is actually there to distinguish.

It also prevents juries having to find not guilty to murder if they feel there was fault, but not intent, but I guess being familiar with the law, you'd be OK with that...

M

So hitting someone in an unprovoked attack which resulted in them dying of their injuries would be classed as "an act of carelessness" in your opinion then? I'm sure we can sleep soundly knowing that.

[ralphy]

Absurd meaning: 'wildly unreasonable, illogical, inappropriate...'

R

[ralphy]

Now, the question in this case is whether they had the intention - I wasn't in court and I presume (but may be wrong) that you weren't either, but it would appear that there was enough doubt raised in the jury's mind about the intention for them to decide the murder conditions hadn't been met.

Ten (at least) of the eleven members of the jury believed the murder charge had not been proved.

R

[oldoakknives]

So hitting someone in an unprovoked attack which resulted in them dying of their injuries would be classed as "an act of carelessness" in your opinion then? I'm sure we can sleep soundly knowing that.

Absurd meaning: 'wildly unreasonable, illogical, inappropriate...'

R

Really?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ma...lient=safariIf

[ralphy]

Really?

Whoosh!

R

[oldoakknives]

Whoosh!

R

Whoosh yourself if you can't answer.

[Franky Four Fingers]

So hitting someone in an unprovoked attack which resulted in them dying of their injuries would be classed as "an act of carelessness" in your opinion then? I'm sure we can sleep soundly knowing that.

If I stalk someone for months, plan an attack which ends up killing them then it’s absolutely murder
If I’m walking down the road this evening with my wife and she is subjected to a prolonged personal attack by someone from behind and in a fit of temper I clock him squarely on the chin which results in the person dying from that punch then I’m glad the law is how it is.

If I’m walking past someone this evening and for the absolute hell of it I decide to sucker punch some poor unsuspecting person then id agree with you it should be murder, I think for clarity you need to define what you mean.

[oldoakknives]

If I stalk someone for months, plan an attack which ends up killing them then it’s absolutely murder
If I’m walking down the road this evening with my wife and she is subjected to a prolonged personal attack by someone from behind and in a fit of temper I clock him squarely on the chin which results in the person dying from that punch then I’m glad the law is how it is.

If I’m walking past someone this evening and for the absolute hell of it I decide to sucker punch some poor unsuspecting person then id agree with you it should be murder, I think for clarity you need to define what you mean.

I agree with your examples, it's exactly what I mean.

[snowman]

So hitting someone in an unprovoked attack which resulted in them dying of their injuries would be classed as "an act of carelessness" in your opinion then? I'm sure we can sleep soundly knowing that.

Did I say that?

M

Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk

[oldoakknives]

Did I say that?

M

Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk

No but I presume you think it would fall into the same category.

[snowman]

You presume too much.

You claim to understand the difference between murder and manslaughter, but your reply suggests you don't.

M

Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk

[ralphy]

...
If I’m walking down the road this evening with my wife and she is subjected to a prolonged personal attack by someone from behind and in a fit of temper I clock him squarely on the chin which results in the person dying from that punch then I’m glad the law is how it is.

I agree with your examples, it's exactly what I mean.

If you attack someone and they die as a result of that attack, in my opinion it's murder regardless of your intentions.

R

[oldoakknives]

You presume too much.

You claim to understand the difference between murder and manslaughter, but your reply suggests you don't.

M

Sent from my ASUS_X00PD using Tapatalk

As I’ve repeatedly said, I understand the difference according to the law, but in this instance I believe the law is an ass.

[oldoakknives]

R

Yes my statement was too broad, but by 'attacking someone' I meant instigating the violence, obviously being provoked by attacks on your spouse would be a somewhat different scenario. Well spotted Walphy.

[Saint-Just]

Yes my statement was too broad, but by 'attacking someone' I meant instigating the violence, obviously being provoked by attacks on your spouse would be a somewhat different scenario. Well spotted Walphy.

The problem here Ian is, what is the threshold for a provocation to warrant a violent response that could end tragically when it wasn’t at all intentional?

I am not a violent man at all but have ended up in my share of fights. Even a push can result in a fatal fall.

As I said in my first post on the thread, the law didn’t come out like it is now from some kind of oracle, but is the result of centuries of evolution. During this time it has been extremely repressive at times, especially for the poor, yet at no point can it be said that the perspective of a harsher sentencing resulted in a reduction of crime.

You are correct when you say that the victim’s -or their relatives’- plight is ignored, or more precisely that the sentencing doesn’t give them ‘justice’. But it has, in the past: from Talion law to the possibility of ‘paying for the crime’ (literally). It doesn’t work.

Justice is not revenge. It is society delivering a sentence for a crime, taking into account as much of the circumstances as possible to be fair to the defendant, but without ever losing sight of the crime committed NOT AGAINST THE VICTIM, but against society.

As such I completely understand you’re not satisfied with the outcomes, simply because you expect justice to give more heed to the victims.

The other problem is what to expect of a sentence. Personally I would want to see the individual coming out to be ready to take his place back in society. Which also could mean that those who are not ready do not come out. Unfortunately at the moment very little -if any at all- is done to prepare them. So sentencing is purely repressive.

And many people who come out will offend again, repeatedly.

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That is what we are doing with the people we convict. Until we address this, sentencing will always be inadequate.

[Passenger]

Can't see society even getting a fair crack of the whip tbh, never mind the poor victim or his loved ones, still we are where we are.

[Chris_in_the_UK]

When you have been on the 'front line' in the UK in whatever role, you are qualified to have a reasoned view.

[oldoakknives]

The problem here Ian is, what is the threshold for a provocation to warrant a violent response that could end tragically when it wasn’t at all intentional?

I am not a violent man at all but have ended up in my share of fights. Even a push can result in a fatal fall.

As I said in my first post on the thread, the law didn’t come out like it is now from some kind of oracle, but is the result of centuries of evolution. During this time it has been extremely repressive at times, especially for the poor, yet at no point can it be said that the perspective of a harsher sentencing resulted in a reduction of crime.

You are correct when you say that the victim’s -or their relatives’- plight is ignored, or more precisely that the sentencing doesn’t give them ‘justice’. But it has, in the past: from Talion law to the possibility of ‘paying for the crime’ (literally). It doesn’t work.

Justice is not revenge. It is society delivering a sentence for a crime, taking into account as much of the circumstances as possible to be fair to the defendant, but without ever losing sight of the crime committed NOT AGAINST THE VICTIM, but against society.

As such I completely understand you’re not satisfied with the outcomes, simply because you expect justice to give more heed to the victims.

The other problem is what to expect of a sentence. Personally I would want to see the individual coming out to be ready to take his place back in society. Which also could mean that those who are not ready do not come out. Unfortunately at the moment very little -if any at all- is done to prepare them. So sentencing is purely repressive.

And many people who come out will offend again, repeatedly.

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That is what we are doing with the people we convict. Until we address this, sentencing will always be inadequate.

I agree with much of what you say. But I still believe manslaughter is a copout for many people who laugh at the law. As for the OP case, in the words of Ian Hislop, "if that's justice then I'm a banana"

[Kevin]

There is a big difference between justice and the law.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using TZ-UK mobile app

[Passenger]

When you have been on the 'front line' in the UK in whatever role, you are qualified to have a reasoned view.

Problem is in some parts the front lines find you whether you're paid/trained to be there or not. Nonetheless I agree with you, whatever role, victim or emergency/police service, it is indeed a qualification, one of experience.

I mean look at the example of the mum of the Lawrence lad who was stabbed years back, she'd no experience except as a grieving mother, she was made a peer iirc, elevated into the fabric of the very system itself, based on her victimhood by association.
As an aside didn't she accuse the fire service of racism over the handling of the Grenfell fire, sorry getting off topic, but it does relate to your point about front lines, qualifications and reasoned views.

[ralphy]

The problem here Ian is, what is the threshold for a provocation to warrant a violent response that could end tragically when it wasn’t at all intentional?

I am not a violent man at all but have ended up in my share of fights. Even a push can result in a fatal fall.

As I said in my first post on the thread, the law didn’t come out like it is now from some kind of oracle, but is the result of centuries of evolution. During this time it has been extremely repressive at times, especially for the poor, yet at no point can it be said that the perspective of a harsher sentencing resulted in a reduction of crime.

You are correct when you say that the victim’s -or their relatives’- plight is ignored, or more precisely that the sentencing doesn’t give them ‘justice’. But it has, in the past: from Talion law to the possibility of ‘paying for the crime’ (literally). It doesn’t work.

Justice is not revenge. It is society delivering a sentence for a crime, taking into account as much of the circumstances as possible to be fair to the defendant, but without ever losing sight of the crime committed NOT AGAINST THE VICTIM, but against society.

As such I completely understand you’re not satisfied with the outcomes, simply because you expect justice to give more heed to the victims.

The other problem is what to expect of a sentence. Personally I would want to see the individual coming out to be ready to take his place back in society. Which also could mean that those who are not ready do not come out. Unfortunately at the moment very little -if any at all- is done to prepare them. So sentencing is purely repressive.

And many people who come out will offend again, repeatedly.

It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

That is what we are doing with the people we convict. Until we address this, sentencing will always be inadequate.

I'd add a couple of points.

'Even a push can result in a fatal fall'. This is precisely why the category of manslaughter must be within the law and for which a charge for murder would be absurd (short of pushing someone off a cliff that is).

Sentences are decided in part based on the harm the victim suffers and the offender’s role – so the effect on the victim is a part in the decision as to what sentence an offender gets.

R

[Saint-Just]

Indeed, but the sentence can never reflect the plight of the victim/relatives; in this respect, while it may influence the jury to a point, the sentence will almost always appear too lenient from their point of view.

[Passenger]

I'd add a couple of points.

'Even a push can result in a fatal fall'. This is precisely why the category of manslaughter must be within the law and for which a charge for murder would be absurd (short of pushing someone off a cliff that is).

Sentences are decided in part based on the harm the victim suffers and the offender’s role – so the effect on the victim is a part in the decision as to what sentence an offender gets.

R

Your assertion re sentencing being partly based on harm the victim suffers/ offenders role just doesn't seem to hold much/any water in the Harper case R...the poor devil was basically flayed to death, gotta be about one of the worst ways to go, surely if that 'harm' was genuinely accounted for each responsible party should've received 25 years...or at least more than the likely 8 and 6 they'll serve once the 'system' has been applied. Are we supposed to believe, despite I imagine Harper shouting and later screaming, somehow they didn't know he was tangled in the tow rope, or that the swerving to attempt to shake his body loose was coincidental...I could've believed the idea it was only a terrible accident and unintentional had they stopped and freed him/attempted first aid/called an ambulance, such actions would imho be credible mitigation but that wasn't how it occurred, or at least that wasn't reported. The 'legal' version of events, or what passes for it looking at the sentence, suggests mitigating factors and benefits of the doubt have been extended to the criminals which were entirely undeserved.

[ralphy]

Your assertion re sentencing being partly based on harm the victim suffers/ offenders role just doesn't seem to hold much/any water in the Harper case R...the poor devil was basically flayed to death, gotta be about one of the worst ways to go, surely if that 'harm' was genuinely accounted for each responsible party should've received 25 years...or at least more than the likely 8 and 6 they'll serve once the 'system' has been applied.

I suggest you should find out how the manslaughter sentences were determined in under to understand why they got what the did.

WRT Doreen Lawrence, perehaps a little bit more reading would explain why 'she'd no experience except as a grieving mother, she was made a peer iirc, elevated into the fabric of the very system itself, based on her victimhood by association' is somewhat dismissive given what she has done and why she was appointed to the HoL as a working Peer.

R

[Passenger]

I suggest you should find out how the manslaughter sentences were determined in under to understand why they got what the did.

WRT Doreen Lawrence, perehaps a little bit more reading would explain why 'she'd no experience except as a grieving mother, she was made a peer iirc, elevated into the fabric of the very system itself, based on her victimhood by association' is somewhat dismissive given what she has done and why she was appointed to the HoL as a working Peer.

R

Was rather hoping for some of your insight since you'd claimed to be fairly au fait with the system R and asserted that the 'harm', ie PC Harpers death by flaying was taken into account for sentencing, I was hoping to tap into your claimed knowledge, y'know as part of the discussion.
Do you believe that 'harm' was accounted for and is reflected in the sentences, just curious?

WRT to Doreen Lawrence she was a bank teller by career, though as I suggested in the prior post responding to Chris, anyone can find themselves on the front line nowadays. What did you make of her claim re the fire brigade being racist based on their handling of Grenfell, is the lady biased or is there some grain of truth...

[snowman]

Your assertion re sentencing being partly based on harm the victim suffers/ offenders role just doesn't seem to hold much/any water in the Harper case R...the poor devil was basically flayed to death, gotta be about one of the worst ways to go, surely if that 'harm' was genuinely accounted for each responsible party should've received 25 years...or at least more than the likely 8 and 6 they'll serve once the 'system' has been applied. Are we supposed to believe, despite I imagine Harper shouting and later screaming, somehow they didn't know he was tangled in the tow rope, or that the swerving to attempt to shake his body loose was coincidental...I could've believed the idea it was only a terrible accident and unintentional had they stopped and freed him/attempted first aid/called an ambulance, such actions would imho be credible mitigation but that wasn't how it occurred, or at least that wasn't reported. The 'legal' version of events, or what passes for it looking at the sentence, suggests mitigating factors and benefits of the doubt have been extended to the criminals which were entirely undeserved.

Well, that's presumably what the appeal will address.

I wasn't in court, so didn't hear all the evidence, I'm not sure what was claimed, but the jury were and went for manslaughter.

The sentence, of course, was the judge's decision and, again, I don't know how he decided - Life would have been difficult to apply, I suspect, but the court of appeal could apply that.

Given the convicteds' youth, the judge MAY have felt they were candidates for rehabilitation, given their records, that seems unlikely to me.

I can't see anyone but the driver, getting life, though - In reality only he could have stopped the car.

M

[Passenger]

Well, that's presumably what the appeal will address.

I wasn't in court, so didn't hear all the evidence, I'm not sure what was claimed, but the jury were and went for manslaughter.

The sentence, of course, was the judge's decision and, again, I don't know how he decided - Life would have been difficult to apply, I suspect, but the court of appeal could apply that.

Given the convicteds' youth, the judge MAY have felt they were candidates for rehabilitation, given their records, that seems unlikely to me.

I can't see anyone but the driver, getting life, though - In reality only he could have stopped the car.

M

Me neither, in court, somehow I can only imagine the jury must´ve come to accept the version of events that the little lambs in that car were entirely unaware they towed that poor chap down the road, and the swerving of the vehicle must´ve been entirely unrelated to shaking him off. Maybe explained as avoiding a hedgehog OR badger in the road, pikey thieves being famous for their animal rights position. How else finding a ruling manslaughter not murder. I mean any normal, honest, not crooked person faced with accidentally catching someone in a tow rope would immediately stop the vehicle. But the Law, the systems, strange like that, a lotta bs, cognitive dissonance has to be swallowed otherwise it won´t ´work´. I´ve a notion a lot of our venerated institutions are increasingly going this way, not entirely fit for purpose any more.

Fingers crossed then.

I still reckon there might be a case for an algo, if it were almost good enough for the children, definitely good enough for the crims.

[Alansmithee]

The sentence, of course, was the judge's decision and, again, I don't know how he decided - Life would have been difficult to apply, I suspect, but the court of appeal could apply that.


M

It's done with sentencing tables - all freely available:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...deline-Web.pdf

[snowman]

It's done with sentencing tables - all freely available:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...deline-Web.pdf

Interesting reading.

I still reckon there might be a case for an algo, if it were almost good enough for the children, definitely good enough for the crims.

It would appear there already is one...

M

[ralphy]

Was rather hoping for some of your insight since you'd claimed to be fairly au fait with the system R and asserted that the 'harm', ie PC Harpers death by flaying was taken into account for sentencing, I was hoping to tap into your claimed knowledge, y'know as part of the discussion.
Do you believe that 'harm' was accounted for and is reflected in the sentences, just curious?
I'm sure it would be better that you go and 'find out how the manslaughter sentences were determined in under to understand why they got what the did.' for yourself rather than take my understanding.

WRT to Doreen Lawrence she was a bank teller by career, though as I suggested in the prior post responding to Chris, anyone can find themselves on the front line nowadays. What did you make of her claim re the fire brigade being racist based on their handling of Grenfell, is the lady biased or is there some grain of truth...
And had she been a bank manager would that alter anything in the opinion you hold of the woman who 'hadno experience except as a grieving mother, she was made a peer iirc, elevated into the fabric of the very system itself, based on her victimhood by association'?

Again, I'd suggest finding out some more about her: the work she has done since her son was stabbed to death, the way she was treated in the aftermath, how she took on the criminal justice system and changed it, the charity Trust she created, the OBE award, appointed as a Baroness to the HoL... not bad for a 'bank teller', I'd say.
Just a thought.

R

[oldoakknives]

It's done with sentencing tables - all freely available:

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...deline-Web.pdf

Reading that it seems that PC Harpers killers got off fairly light, with sentences from the lowest range.

[Saint-Just]

Reading that it seems that PC Harpers killers got off fairly light, with sentences from the lowest range.

... Which is probably the very reason of the appeal.

The system is far from perfect. And people will try to improve it again. But this part works, overall. It is the next part that doesn’t.

[Rod]

Ten (at least) of the eleven members of the jury believed the murder charge had not been proved.

R

They weren't shown the complete video of PC Harper's death because it was too horrific. If they had, it may have been a different outcome.
If you drag a body for over a mile, on a quiet country lane the screams alone would have been blood curdling, not to mention there was a person in the rear seat looking out the rear window most likely seeing a pursuing police car and a body being dragged.
For goodness sake, there wasn't much left of him.
Some of you on here who think killing a police officer in uniform or any emergency worker is equal to any other killing are mistaken.
They are our paid protectors of life and deserve more protection.

[Kingstepper]

They weren't shown the complete video of PC Harper's death because it was too horrific. If they had, it may have been a different outcome.
If you drag a body for over a mile, on a quiet country lane the screams alone would have been blood curdling, not to mention there was a person in the rear seat looking out the rear window most likely seeing a pursuing police car and a body being dragged.
For goodness sake, there wasn't much left of him.
Some of you on here who think killing a police officer in uniform or any emergency worker is equal to any other killing are mistaken.
They are our paid protectors of life and deserve more protection.

We aren't mistaken, we just have a different opinion to yours.

[wileeeeeey]

They weren't shown the complete video of PC Harper's death because it was too horrific. If they had, it may have been a different outcome.
If you drag a body for over a mile, on a quiet country lane the screams alone would have been blood curdling, not to mention there was a person in the rear seat looking out the rear window most likely seeing a pursuing police car and a body being dragged.
For goodness sake, there wasn't much left of him.
Some of you on here who think killing a police officer in uniform or any emergency worker is equal to any other killing are mistaken.
They are our paid protectors of life and deserve more protection.

Rod, I fully agree with 90% of what you have written here. If I had a say they would all be killed for what they did, they're absolute vermin and the world would be a better place without them.

However what someone chooses to do for a living doesn't make their life worth more than the next person. If someone is murdered it doesn't matter if they baked cakes for a living, walked the beat, ran into burning buildings or installed sky TV, the punishment should remain the same.

Paid protectors of life and deserve more protection? Give over. If our protectors need protection then we should give up and start over. Police and fire take their jobs knowing there is a risk to their lives but doesn't mean each dead or murder isn't sad. They do however deserve a better employer but there are already multiple threads along those lines so I won't pile in here.

[Franky Four Fingers]

They weren't shown the complete video of PC Harper's death because it was too horrific. If they had, it may have been a different outcome.
If you drag a body for over a mile, on a quiet country lane the screams alone would have been blood curdling, not to mention there was a person in the rear seat looking out the rear window most likely seeing a pursuing police car and a body being dragged.
For goodness sake, there wasn't much left of him.
Some of you on here who think killing a police officer in uniform or any emergency worker is equal to any other killing are mistaken.
They are our paid protectors of life and deserve more protection.

Nope, don’t understand that one. Surely a killing of a person is a killing of a person.

[Rod]

Nope, don’t understand that one. Surely a killing of a person is a killing of a person.

Your right a killing of a person is as killing of a person and the courts will sentence on the facts of that case.
The difference here, is that a uniformed police officer is there to protect and save lives and you pay for that, 'policing by consent'.
To kill an officer going about his duty, trying to apprehend some criminal who has taken your property, then is murdered, it has to rank a more serious level of punishment.
I also apply this to any emergency worker going about his duty saving lives.
There's a difference and it amazes me some can't see it.
I can give you several cases in my uniformed years of fellow officers being attacked.
There's a case in Darlington the other day where an officer was punched 40 times at his head... He could easily have died from that. He didn't go to work that shift to tolerate that. It's a bloody dangerous job at the best of times and deserve a high level of protection.

[ralphy]

They weren't shown the complete video of PC Harper's death because it was too horrific.
Which complete video is that?
.
If you drag a body for over a mile, on a quiet country lane the screams alone would have been blood curdling...
Not according to the post-mortem report.

R

[ralphy]

Reading that it seems that PC Harpers killers got off fairly light, with sentences from the lowest range.

Nope.

For an offender over 21 the offence of a murder of a police officer engages the starting point of a whole life order. For Henry Long, who was 18 when he committed the offence, the starting point would have been 30 years.

The judge however chose to apply a significant upward adjustment of the starting point, which is set at 18 years for the proven charge. He decided that due to the seriousness of the crime the custodial term for Long would be based on a starting point of 24 years. That was then discounted for his age and then for his plea of guilty to 16 years - as per the system.

Putting aside the guidelines of the prison incarceration being one half of the sentence, the judge opted to use two-thirds for the basis of prison, hence Long will serve 10 years and 8 months of that before he can be considered for release.

R

[oldoakknives]

... Which is probably the very reason of the appeal.

The system is far from perfect. And people will try to improve it again. But this part works, overall. It is the next part that doesn’t.

I don’t think the system works at all. There’s a section of society that acts like it’s the Wild West or worse and seem to get away with it time after time. They see any kind of leniency as a weakness to be exploited and constantly claim to be the victims of prejudice. It’s ridiculous and the government should do something about it.

[Saint-Just]

I entirely disagree. The fact that a portion of society runs amok has its roots in both how they are treated and how they are NOT brought to court. Too many crimes are not investigated, let alone have the perpetrators brought to justice. It’s a number’s game that many find worth playing.
Then, if and when they’’re caught and sentenced, they are sent to institutions that do not have the means, the will or the competency to rehabilitate them and give them the tools and the willingness to play a normal, constructive part in society.

Neither the law, nor justice are to blame for the failures you denounce. Harsher or longer sentences do not work, they just cost more to society. Its amply demonstrated in the US at the moment, as it has been in every country in the West when it was in place.
It’s what we do during their time that we need to improve.

[oldoakknives]

I entirely disagree. The fact that a portion of society runs amok has its roots in both how they are treated and how they are NOT brought to court. Too many crimes are not investigated, let alone have the perpetrators brought to justice. It’s a number’s game that many find worth playing.
Then, if and when they’’re caught and sentenced, they are sent to institutions that do not have the means, the will or the competency to rehabilitate them and give them the tools and the willingness to play a normal, constructive part in society.

Neither the law, nor justice are to blame for the failures you denounce. Harsher or longer sentences do not work, they just cost more to society. Its amply demonstrated in the US at the moment, as it has been in every country in the West when it was in place.
It’s what we do during their time that we need to improve.

You can’t rehabilitate someone who doesn’t want to be. And I don’t believe they are a result of how they have been treated by society. I believe they are a result of how they themselves view society.

[Franky Four Fingers]

Your right a killing of a person is as killing of a person and the courts will sentence on the facts of that case.
The difference here, is that a uniformed police officer is there to protect and save lives and you pay for that, 'policing by consent'.
To kill an officer going about his duty, trying to apprehend some criminal who has taken your property, then is murdered, it has to rank a more serious level of punishment.
I also apply this to any emergency worker going about his duty saving lives.
There's a difference and it amazes me some can't see it.
I can give you several cases in my uniformed years of fellow officers being attacked.
There's a case in Darlington the other day where an officer was punched 40 times at his head... He could easily have died from that. He didn't go to work that shift to tolerate that. It's a bloody dangerous job at the best of times and deserve a high level of protection.

I agree that they deserve a higher level of protection but I don’t see how increasing a jail term will do that. If someone’s happy to accept they may go jail for 25 plus years for killing someone then they’re hardly going to bat an eyelid about killing a police officer and face 30 years.
When has the threat of jail time ever stopped anyone from killing someone? Even faced with the death penalty it doesn’t stop people in the states.

[Ethos]

Your right a killing of a person is as killing of a person and the courts will sentence on the facts of that case.
The difference here, is that a uniformed police officer is there to protect and save lives and you pay for that, 'policing by consent'.
To kill an officer going about his duty, trying to apprehend some criminal who has taken your property, then is murdered, it has to rank a more serious level of punishment.
I also apply this to any emergency worker going about his duty saving lives.
There's a difference and it amazes me some can't see it.
I can give you several cases in my uniformed years of fellow officers being attacked.
There's a case in Darlington the other day where an officer was punched 40 times at his head... He could easily have died from that. He didn't go to work that shift to tolerate that. It's a bloody dangerous job at the best of times and deserve a high level of protection.

I agree with you Rod.

There's a pretty decent article which breaks down the arguments and leaves you to make your own decision here: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk...the-arguments/

I get the merits of the 'all lives are equally important' argument and also that it is a very complex issue including what role society has to play, how much of a deterrent our sentences are etc. However, I do think that our current system is being 'gamed'. In a situation where a single policeman has disturbed 3 'professional' robbers, I'd like to see the robbers thinking "We need to get away. If we get caught, it's 5-10 years. But if we kill him and get caught, we're never EVER getting out. If we have killed a policeman, they will be absolutely relentless in hunting us down and we're NOT going to get away with it so we'd better not kill him." Yes most people who join the police understand the risks but if we don't protect them, we'll either make it an extremely unattractive profession - or get police who tick the boxes and don't actually protect. If I needed help, I'd rather policemen just jumped in to help me - rather than wait for 10 colleagues because they were afraid for their own lives.

[Rod]

I agree that they deserve a higher level of protection but I don’t see how increasing a jail term will do that. If someone’s happy to accept they may go jail for 25 plus years for killing someone then they’re hardly going to bat an eyelid about killing a police officer and face 30 years.
When has the threat of jail time ever stopped anyone from killing someone? Even faced with the death penalty it doesn’t stop people in the states.

It isn't a deterrent because they know they will be out and about much earlier.
Life meaning life will not be a deterrent either, but it may help in preventing officers being attacked. I believe most folks would think twice about the severity of an attack on an emergency worker if they thought they would never see freedom again for life.
This officer paid the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect a victims stolen quad bike, and those men knew they murdered him. He and his widow deserve some final retribution over his death, not a puny sentence.

[Franky Four Fingers]

It isn't a deterrent because they know they will be out and about much earlier.
Life meaning life will not be a deterrent either, but it may help in preventing officers being attacked. I believe most folks would think twice about the severity of an attack on an emergency worker if they thought they would never see freedom again for life.
This officer paid the ultimate sacrifice trying to protect a victims stolen quad bike, and those men knew they murdered him. He and his widow deserve some final retribution over his death, not a puny sentence.

Any innocent victims of murder should have that retribution.
A young wife who waves off her husband in the morning who never sees him again because he’s been attacked on the tube and killed deserves to see that person locked away for life. What about that same retribution for the chaps innocent 5 year old daughter who’s been left fatherless?


The irony of course is that if you had someone intent on going out and killing someone, using your scenario that a would be killer would think twice about killing a policeman would naturally put a normal non emergency workers in higher danger.