If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Cop killers should face death penalty, says ex-cop
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
But presumably the killers of lesser mortals have done nothing to deserve such fate...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453848.stm
How about killers of doctors? Or paramedics? Or students? Or old ladies?
Either you believe in the death penalty for murder or you don't, methinks...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4453848.stm
How about killers of doctors? Or paramedics? Or students? Or old ladies?
Either you believe in the death penalty for murder or you don't, methinks...
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
And not to sound sexist but if this was a male cop I don't think such a call to re-enstate the death penalty would be made.
Ironic really, given that the death penalty went because of a huge miscarriage of justice regarding the murder of a police officer.
I wonder if the good Lord feels the same about police officers who murder Brazilians on tube trains?
Murder is a mandatory life imprisonment, regardless of who is murdered. Which is how it should be.
Whilst the police need to be protected whilst doing their jobs, their lives are not inherently more valuable than mine or yours.
That's true, but there a higher recommended minimum time in jail given for some murders (and I'd be suprised if that wasn't the case already for police)
As an individual there lives are no more important and an off-duty policeman who is murdered shouldn't be treated any differently. However, as the main role of police is to protect society, if the police can be killed with no extra sanction on top what a normal murder would get it puts society more at risk as killing a police officer is not seen as anything special.
Of course we shouldn't use the death penalty in any case anyway.
You are wrong on so many levels it isn't even funny.
Life means life. Even if a person is released from prison, they are only released on license- that means if they commit any crime, they will go back to prison immediately. That isn't something that is mentioned often, funnily enough.
Life doesn't have a tariff of 25 years at all. Life does mean life, the judge advises a tariff, but this doesn't need to be obeyed. People like Huntley will spend significantly longer than 25 years inside prison, unless he tops himself.
Should all murderers be treated the same? Should the woman who snaps after years of spousal abuse and stabs her husband in the back be jailed for life, with no possibility of parole? Should that woman be treated the same as someone like Huntley or Whiting, who lured young girls and then brutally murdered them? Do you think that makes for a good and fair justice system?
There are so many fallacies spread about murder that it isn't even funny. But life does mean life. If someone on life license so much as drives without an MOT they will go back to prison, possibly forever.
This isn't the same as setting a fixed sentence, though. Even before being released on license - which is subject to recall, although it might not be quite as automatic as Kermit suggests, once the tarrif has expired, all that means is that the prisoner is then eligible to be considered by the parole board for release. Which wouldn't happen if they still consider him a threat to society.
Personally I think that the prospect of a whole-life sentence is almost as horrifying as the death penalty and the apt punishment for the worst of murders. Most murders aren't, however, the worst of murders and require sufficient punishment to reflect society's determination that we should not take another's life, but not punishment so harsh that society itself becomes oppressive and out for revenge.
Those who are killed in the course of duty, or sadistic crimes involving children, can attract a very significant minimum term. A 20 year minimum term isn't uncommon for crimes like this, and an offender is rarely let out at the end of the minimum term.
The law on murder is about right, really.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30044-bp.htm#sch21
Points 4, 5 and 6 set out the factors leading to particular starting points:
'whole life' for double murders including substancial planning, abduction or sexual conduct,
30 years for the murder of a police or prison officer, using a firearm, murder for gain, double murder or sexual murder etc etc,
15 years for other murders.
Then factors which might increase or decrease the tariff from the starting point.
So the starting minimum term would now be 30 years for this crime, possibly more and unlikely less.
I don't have any data on the release or recall of prisoners whose minimum term has expired though. Note that the effect of the CJA was in many cases to increase, sometimes significantly, the minimum term served by life prisoners serving a sentence for murder.
Or at least that is what I learnt in GCSE history.
But it's not that she is a more "valid" life than anyone else, just that murdering her is more appealing than mudering a member of the general public for many people at least.
The CJA 2003 is a load of absolute bollocks. It is completely anathema to justice, but because its not publicised and it is written out in "for the good of humanity" nonsense, people don't challenge it.
Two ABHs and you can get life imprisonment. Lovely, eh?
It did raise the minimum term, my 2004 Archbold said the starting point was 12 years. The same Archbold also states that few people get released after the minimum term.