you're clever enough to know how it works........you know a senior manager saying they are going to do something but in reality doing something else for their own gain.......
Is that what you meant to write? There is no death penalty in the UK for anything. Glad to see you're in favour of only the guilty being executed. Presumably you're ok with the innocent being imprisoned?
Well, you have to admit it's confusing. Being sentenced to life imprisonment, without a life tariff, is therefore not life imprisonment, so maybe it should be called something else. The only life imprisonment is a life sentence with a life tariff. For criminals, it's not that confusing, as they are well aware that they won't normally be sentenced to life for murder. I suppose this is the purpose of the "life for policemen" - to send a clear message to criminals that life will mean life. It is said that most murders are not premeditated, so having a life meaning life would not be an additional deterrent. However, for criminals, killing is something that is factored into the operational plan, so it could be that being clear about what killing a policeman would entail in terms of retribution could perhaps be a deterrent.
I was going too fast..I meant in Singapore (post edited) Don't be a t*t...........that's not wot I ritted.....for your benefit, I mean uncontroversially guilty. IE where there is no doubt. AL
Do we accept that there is a difference between "guilty beyond all reasonable doubt" and "guilty beyond any doubt"? If we don't, there's no sense in suggesting "life sentence for almost certainly guilty" and "execution for the certainly guilty". If we think that there can be scope for two types of guilty, beyond reasonable doubt and beyond all doubt, then maybe that's something that can be hammered out. In the second instance, the legal system would (almost certainly) collapse without some truly gargantuan guidelines.
the second you speak of is 'on the balance of probabilities'.................a lesser level of proof, which is why those that dont get proven guilty in a proper court of law, beyond all reasonable doubt, then face a civil action......on the balance of probabilities.
The plod put their lives on the line in trying to protect the public, that's why cop-killers are being singled out for whole life tariffs. That ain't so hard to understand.
When an offender has been convicted of murder, is due to be sentenced, must be given an obligatory life sentence, and the judge is considering what the tariff should be (i.e. how long before the offender can be considered for parole, if ever), the judge is obliged to consider any aggravating factors. If the victim was a police officer, that fact would already be a very serious aggravating factor. On the other hand there might be an absence of other possible aggravating factors which arise in other cases, such as: murder of a child, murder of multiple victims, murder with a motive of sexual gratification, murder of a victim whom the murderer had a special duty to protect, murder following kidnap and/or torture, premeditated murder, trying to get another innocent person convicted of the murder, etc etc. The Home Secretary seems to be saying that murder of a police officer should be considered as a more serious aggravating factor than any of the above. Does anybody agree with her?
No, I don't necessarily agree with her, to me all of the above should carry a whole-life tariff. However I do think the sweeney should be already comforted by the idea that their aggressors will be treated firmly. Given the nature of their job (certainly not a job I'd like to do) I think that is only fair.
I'll try to set it out another way, what May might be attempting to put in place. A criminal is faced with the choice of doing the crime and saying "fair cop" if caught red-handed and doing time ... ... or injuring/killing a PC in the hope of escaping detection/apprehension and thus escaping punishment. In the criminal's mind, he is doing a quick calculation - a 100% chance of ten years (say) for surrendering to police, or alternatively, a chance of either getting away with it, or doing a "life" sentence for killing the PC. The "life" sentence gets "reduced" if he achieves parole - maybe he serves 20 years or even less? You see the choices? 1. Give up = ten years in prison 2. Kill PC = either away clean or maybe 20 years What May is trying to do is make the criminal's choices less open, a less favourable "gamble". With "whole life", the choices become 1. Give up = ten years 2. Kill PC = away clean or prison until dead I'm not going to argue that May's idea makes sense or would work, but I can see how someone might argue it that way. It's purely a way of getting criminals to voluntarily choose a peaceful way of dealing with getting caught rather than shooting their way out. Either that or it's just a bunch o' bullshit. I know where my money's at.
