A policemans life is worth more

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

It is reported that Theresa May believes that the life of a policeman or woman is worth more then the citizens they allegedly serve.

Mrs May has proposed that anyone killing a police person will receive a mandatory whole life sentence - that is, if convicted, you will die in prison.

I do not have any problem with that except to comment that this principle shold be extended so that everyone is so protected not just police personnel. She says that because the police exist to protect the public and very often put their neck on the line, that, is sufficient justification for special treatment.

Well, where shall we stop? Other public servants from time to time, die in suspicious circumstances. The Fire Service in suspected cases of arson. Paramedics? Army personnel in places of insurgency situations such as Northern Ireland? They are all protecting and serving the public. Is one type of public service more important than another?

This subject has come up in the past and was rejected then - as I recall.

Original post

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 7,025

I have to agree, my families/friends lives are worth as much as anyones,what a weird world we live in.
They say police put themselves in danger,i don't disbelieve it but to put 1 persons life against another in the case of murder is just political sound bite point scoring.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 2,778

Difficult question I think.
I would imagine that there's more than a nod to Police in this, after recent killings of officers on duty.
I know the killing of the two PC's in Manchester by Dale Cregan caused a lot of upset in not only Manchester but in other forces too.
It seems to me in this case at least that life in prison isn't sufficient, and if I ran the country he'd have had a short walk in conjunction with a piece of rope, although quite a few miscreants would go that way.
So, I suppose my view is that punishments should be more harsh, not less.
John.
What's the UKIP policy on crime and punishment..?

Member for

13 years 9 months

Posts: 8,306

I think I can speak with a small amount of "Authority" on this John, as is in my profile here, and as many know, I served my 30yrs on the Force. I knew full well, when I signed on the dotted line, as to what may happen to me in the future whilst serving.
I never expected to be shot, or stabbed,but I was, both could have been fatal, but fortunately they were not.
Why should any person who kills a Police Officer be given the full life sentence, when a member of the public who perchance kills another by exactly the same manner, be given the same sentence but be let out on Parole etc earlier?.
A life is a life, and all cases of murder should be treated the same.
I have long advocated that a life sentence handed out by a Judge and Jury, should MEAN life.I know that being in the Force,is putting you in the front line, as opposed to a Civvy, however. LIFE should mean LIFE for one and all, no exceptions.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Andy,

I don't know about UKIP's policy, you'll have to ask Charlie.

My policy? Well, I think that you could guess at that!

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

Don't ask me, Andy, I don't vote for them!!:highly_amused:

Linc - well said. I endorse your words on equality of sentencing and they are good to hear from an ex-copper.

Member for

20 years 5 months

Posts: 2,778

Andy,
My policy? Well, I think that you could guess at that!

Like me, I imagine it's one of forgiveness and all having a big hug afterwards--I think not..!!

Member for

13 years

Posts: 2,841

Seems that again I am in Jims Fanclub but I agree with him. I would cite one thing that I still believe was a grave miscarriage of justice Christopher Craig and Derek Bentley.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Paul Re 8

I remember it well. That was a stain on the Justice system if ever there was one !

Member for

20 years 7 months

Posts: 7,025

Yes but Huntley,Hindley,Brady and now this man who killed April and the other that killed Tia in the last few weeks,they are proven beyond all doubt.I would kill those that abused those girls in Oxfordshire as well,gangs,drugs well that should be LIFE.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,566

I don't think they are saying that a police officer is worth more than a member of the public. But police officers often put themselves into life threatening situations, that members of the public don't, in order to protect the communities they serve.
So if someone kills a police officer carrying out their duty "to protect and serve", they should be punished to the full extent of the law and receive the maximum penalty, and not some sentence which at them moment would probably mean they'd be out in ten years....

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

No, no differentiation for me. Lincoln is so right in #4. The punishment should be the same for all but so should the sentencing in reflecting the capital crime with a capital sentence which means life, for all. And that's a matter for parliament not the judiciary.

Member for

17 years 5 months

Posts: 8,980

Totally agree, made my blood boil when I heard this, the police is a job, to do it is a choice, your choice, a murderer should face the same whether they kill a child, an OAP, another person or a policeman.... Life.. To say you get life for just killing a policeman means the rest are in effect being treated as second class citizens and that its not so bad to kill an OAP etc.... And that is morally wrong on so many levels.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 1,940

Murder should be treated the same, whoever the victim. The sentence should either be life with no parole or (better and cheaper in the long run) it should be death, once there is absolutely no doubt at all as to guilt.

Brady, Sutcliffe, Philpott, Nielsen, Huntley and their kind would be the first to go.

Member for

11 years 5 months

Posts: 11,141

should be death, once there is absolutely no doubt at all as to guilt.

That's the part I disagree with. Having been peripherally involved in a wrong decision many years ago and even if it happens once in a decade or once in 30 years it is once too many. And I cannot accept the system of appeal after appeal as in the USA with the condemned man on death row for years and years.

I have no moral scruples about the death penalty per se only the fact that an error might have been made and the dead man can never be returned to his famly whereas a man who has been in prison for say 20 years might still have a life, although a severely ruined one, I grant you. Albert Pierrepoint, the chief executioner for many years, changed his mind before presenting his evidence to the committee in the late 60s, because of the risk, however slight, of miscarriages of justice.

Member for

14 years

Posts: 4,996

It's easy to propose legislation, quite another to get it adopted.
Then there are the European courts to contend with.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

It's both ironic and rather strange that we can cite the European Convention to secure the release or downgrading of sentences of offenders, some of whom stand convicted of quite serious offences yet we have no system perhaps allied to the same Convention that permits an increase in penalty. I am aware that sentences can be increased via the attentions of the Attorney General. They are either rare or, they do not get reported.