Originally Posted by
snowman
I don't have ZERO idea what the sentence would have been, they are applied according to sentencing guidelines.
Actually you don’t. I agree that sentencing guidelines are used, however notice the word GUIDELINES. Much of the actual sentence is determined by the judge with the guidelines. Which is why many sentences are subject to review and subsequently changed.
Clearly you don't like them, but they are what they are, so YES, the sentence would have been more or less the same, as the guidelines were followed in this case.
Regarding the sentencing guidelines, in my opinion they are flawed - as I previous stated. If you believe that someone should get 16 years (they will serve about 8) for dragging a person (note just a copper) behind a car for over a mile, which results in that persons death, is inappropriate, then actually we would be in agreement.
You're still twisting the race/religion/etc point, there is NO difference for the person involved (if a Muslim dies, the convicted doesn't get longer), the difference is in the motivation - As you say it's an element of Hate Crime, NOT which religion, race, sex, etc the victim was - If a Muslim kills Christians in a religiously hate motivated crime, he gets added sentence, I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
I am not twisting anything simply pointing out a disparity in the Law. Which according to some, doesn’t exist, despite a law stating it actually does. Also because the Hate Crime law exists, it enable perpetrators to be charged with an additional offence, which carries an addition sentence.
It's about motivation - Would you say that an overweight policeman who drops dead chasing a shoplifter would justify the shoplifter getting life? Or a policeman who is hit by a passing motorist because he didn't look, chasing the same person? Logically, all crimes would risk incurring a life sentence, but maybe you feel that's what a just society would be?
Wow, talk about moving the goal posts. I talked about joy riders, rioters and you talked about shop lifters. But I disagree about it being just about motivation. To me it’s all about possible consequences of a criminal action. The consequences of driving a car at high speed, the consequences of throwing a brick, the consequences to punching someone, resisting arrest, etc are significant different to someone smoking a joint or shop lifting. A rioter might have all sorts of personal motivation for throwing a brick, however what really counts is the possible consequences of their action.
I suspect a rioter throwing a substantial stone (or say, a petrol bomb) and killing a police officer would be charged with murder and probably convicted, if the evidence was there that they did, as they would be likely to cause significant harm, but again, most of this is conjecture and guess work, there isn't the volume of cases some are suggesting to support it (thankfully).
In the case of throwing a stone, I would imagine that a murder conviction would only be obtained if it was proven that thrower intended to kill or knew in advance that their action was likely to cause death. Under the current laws, manslaughter is a more probable outcome. Dropping a fridge off a roof onto a group of people, might be sufficient get a murder change. Maybe this explains why rioters who throw stones are not charged with attempted murder.
Once again, HOW is the law flawed? Just stating it is is as meaningless as saying the earth is flat or gravity doesn't exist, unless you back it up with some explanation or justification.
See above. Plus your analogy is wrong. It’s nothing like saying the earth is flat, because it isn’t and it’s supported by facts. However i can say something is flawed because it’s my subjective point of view. Doesn’t mean it’s right, but then it doesn’t mean it isn’t either.
What you mean (and here I sympathise) is that these little sh*ts didn't care that they killed PC Harper in a horrible way and deserve as much hell on earth as can be provided, but THAT is different to saying the law doesn't protect police officers or that people are getting away with light sentences for killing police officers on a regular basis.
No I have never said that the police and emergency service workers (please don’t forget them) are not protected under law. What I am saying is that despite the risks they take, they don’t get any additional protection than some other sectors of the community. The law doesn’t give them any special treatment.
Thankfully, few police officers are killed in the line of duty in the UK and when they are most of the time the killers are convicted of murder.
“few police officers are killed in the line of duty”. Well isn’t that just dandy. I am sure will be a comfort to the families of those emergency services workers who are killed. But what about all those Emergency services workers who are abused, spat at, beaten, injured on a daily basis by the people they serve? I suppose they just have to suck it up. No special protection for them and no special punishment for those responsible.
But doesn’t it strike you odd that some people here value, and are very protective of their rights, their stuff, their families, their safety, their health etc, but seem to be much less protective of those they rely on them to provide this protection.
M
Reply With Quote
