Theresa May has announced plans for compulsory whole life sentences for those who kill police officers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22534665 Does this mean that police officers are valued more highly than the ordinary man/woman on the street? Does this mean that the existing law is not being applied correctly to ensure whole life sentences for murder? Should life mean life? Discuss...
It's been a them and us with the police forces for decades. Once again they seem to think they are special in a positive light. Public service types bleeding us dry more like.
The arrogance of politicians knows no bounds. After 3 years of antagonistic behaviour towards the Police, the woman seems to have decided she can buy their support just 2 years from the next general election. Just another insult to their intelligence? Perhaps pay rises for nurses next? Or will the politicians take a pay cut?
I'll give this a try but I see Ant's point. Killing a policeman is a deliberate act with a view to escaping justice for another crime - in most cases. There may be circumstances when a murder is unpremeditated - perhaps armed robbery (don't confuse premeditation with inevitable) - but the killing of a police officer is a deliberate attempt to escape justice. The deterrent of "whole life" is trying to stack the deck against criminals who think they can get clean away, escape justice, if they incapacitate or kill an officer or officers. Raising the stakes so that the "smart play" by a criminal has to be measured against the increased punishment for the act. Best I can do at short notice. More likely, it's playing politics in the usual cynical manner that politicians do. I'm not against it in principle.
I don't doubt she was playing to her audience, but I'm sure there are areas to clarify ........ Does this mean other citizens lives are worth less ? What about other emergency services? What about someone who murders an off duty officer without realising they are an officer? is it right that a deliberate act of killing a lea enforcement office carries a higher sentence that killing an innocent bystander who is at the scene of a crime? Should someone who murders a convicted paedophile get a significantly reduced sentence? Where should the line be drawn?
Life should be life .. When you enter a dangerous job like the Military , police , fire service the risk of death is higher . Yes you are more of a target . You know this when you sign up for the job and except it ( even if its wrong) You also are trained to deal with dangerous and at risk situations. So life for life. Yet a man kills a little child ?? And doesn't get life???? Killing an innocent child doesn't get life????? Life for a life .... Life means life til you die
I am all for the death penalty for the most heinous murders. For example the very recent Tia Sharp murder, far to may aggravating factors for this beast to even breath.
These are all questions for the Sentencing Council to wrestle with. The SC has the statutory duty to set the sentencing entry point for each type of offence, analyse all the various aggravating and mitigating factors which may arise, and indicate how much weight should attach to each. What we have here is a politician who cannot resist poking her fingers in and trying to subvert the Sentencing Council's functions. And not by seeking a resolution in Parliament, but by making a cheap point in a speech at a conference. Oh for God's sake, Home Secretary, get a grip of yourself!
It's not about the individual, it's more about the fact that to murder a police officer is to show utter contempt for the rules of society at large. We should all regret the lack of respect for our elders and the reasons for this attitude prevailing. This is an extension of the same. Assuming it doesn't apply in circumstances where it isn't about the victim's role as an officer. I reserve the right to rescind all of this after the wine wears off, naturally.
You used to get a life sentence for killing anybody. Now it appears, murder just isn't that important any more.
This was one of the points I was trying to make - surely if the law is being applied correctly then there shouldn't be any need to treat police officers any differently? So where has this failed, and why has it failed? Is it the courts not sentencing correctly?
There is a difference between a life sentence which is the standard sentence in cases of murder whatever the occupation, age or status of the victim and a whole life tariff. The case I think Hellcat made an oblique reference to, that of Stuart Hazell found guilty of murdering Tia Sharp, is an example of the confusion brought about by poor standards of journalism. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, almost all sentences carry the potential of remission for good behaviour, rehabilitation etc. In this case the minimum he will serve behind bars is 38 years before becoming eligible for early release. It is by no means certain he will be released in 38 years time but bearing in mind he will be 75 when that time comes around he's unlikely to see much difference between a whole life tariff and 38 years minimum. It is also worth noting that early release does not mean the rest of the sentence goes away, another transgression of the law and it's back to chokey for the remainder of the sentence. What I suspect the Home Secretary is suggesting is automatic full life tariff penalties for murdering a police officer in the course of their duties. Why she thinks this is more of a deterrent than a minimum of 25 years behind bars escapes me but then I'm not desperately seeking approval from a largely indifferent populace that gets it's opinions from the tabloids.
Indeed. Most journalists seem to be too stupid to know the difference between a sentence and a tariff, or they assume their readers are.
Sadly an early release on licence in these circumstances cost one of my former colleagues his life whilst on duty. A simplistic view but having been convicted of murder, life should simply mean for the rest of the natural life of that offender. As for Pete1950's comment regarding journalists, most would not know how to publish a balanced and honest article if you wrote it for them.
The biggest problem with society and the justice system in the UK, is that there is no longer a deterrent severe enough to make people think before they commit a serious crime. When I was a kid, a juvenile even; a policeman was to be feared or respected at least. Being a naughty boy could warrant the birch for what thes days is an everyday occurrence. Murder was quite rare by comparison to today (accepted that reports are made public more quickly). If I have my facts correctly, in Singapore I believe the death penalty is mandatory for drug dealing. In my opinion it would only take one or two of those in the UK for drug use to be reduced dramatically; likewise the penalty for killing anyone should be severe. Frankly I would be in favour for hanging; with the proviso that the guilty party is unmistakenly that. Unfortunately, I 'suspect' there are criminal elements within the 'authorities' that would 'find' evidence to secure convictions, maybe to save their own necks. AL
