Police Killers freed

Status
Not open for further replies.
mid_gen said:
You can pay the extra taxes to keep them there then, I'm not. The cost of keeping every person that committed murder in prison until they die of old age would be astronomical.
Click to expand...


what an astoundingly rediculous comment... so let them go.. let everyone go then it doesnt cost...
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Bernie174 said:
.... in his particular case life was clearly the intention of the Trial Judge, and therefore thats what it should mean.
Click to expand...

Actually the trial judge in this case handed down a life sentence (mandatory) with a minimum of 30 years to be served.
I'm pretty sure if he'd have meant entire life, he'd have given a whole life term.
 
The Judge couldn't recommend any more than the 30 years.

And his comments were
"I think it likely that no home secretary regarding the enormity of your crime will ever think fit to show mercy by releasing you on licence.

"This is one of those cases in which the sentence of imprisonment for life may well be treated as meaning exactly what it says."

In any case, that is an alternative position to the covenant that killers of Police officers are never released. It acts as a deterrent, and given the low level of murders of Police compared to most other Countries, it seems to have worked.
 
'Defence of the realm'. Lolololololololol :) It's not the nineteenth century any more darling!

To the point of the thread. Murderers should spend life in prison without parole however, this man poses no threat.

Anyway, I thought you hated the plod/fuzz/dibble.
 
ghoti said:
It does. The length of time given in a life sentence is the minimum before parole will even be considered. The default is still life, and even if they do get out on parole after the minimum period (and this individual did not) they remain on license for the rest of their natural life.
Click to expand...

Ture of course, but I think the question is why can there not be a life sentence without chance of parole for crimes like this. I believe there was the very rarely used one which had 30ish? people on it, but can't remember if this was revoked by the European courts.

Either way, I believe people who commit such crimes should stay in jail until they die. It's not about satisfaction, I gain no satisfaction from anyone gong to jail, but I believe the punishment for taking someone's life should be life in prison, in these circumstances certainly.

If you believe people should be released because they are old, so be it, and we can release and / or not imprison anyone over age 70 or whatever arbitrary age we choose. But if someone at the same age as him now commits a murder, does he get off because he is old?

If the families of the victims all came out sand said they wanted him released then I'd certainly accept their views.

ST4 said:
Shooting people who illegally invade our country. Too right. But it's not murder, it's defence of the realm.
Click to expand...

You really don't help yourself with these sort of comments....

Bernie174 said:
The reason for the outrage from the Feds, and Police Officers as a whole, is that there has been until recently a convenient, like the Military one concerning those that kill Police Officers. That was that anyone who kills a Police Officer dies inside.

Why? Very simple really, while you the great British Public can, and do walk away, a Police Officer cannot. As they are doing by virtue of holding an office, something the public wont, they deserve more protection. That protection is life meaning life.
As a side issue that same convenient also applies if a member of the public is murdered doing his public duty and assisting Police.

Even without that unwritten agreement, in his particular case life was clearly the intention of the Trial Judge, and therefore thats what it should mean.
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. I have great respect for the police and what they do, as a general rule. However a life is a life. You can make arguments for many different types of murders, we will all have our own views on which are worse, murder of children, police, firefighters, mums, military. The crime and effect on their families the same. For me, same crime, same punishment.
 
There can be life sentence without parole.
Whole life terms are an option to the court if the situation warrants.
 
ST4 said:
Shooting people who illegally invade our country. Too right. But it's not murder, it's defence of the realm.
Click to expand...
Even if your absurd stance that it is defence of the realm is correct (which it isn't), then in a war your scenario would still be murder...
 
akr said:
Ture of course, but I think the question is why can there not be a life sentence without chance of parole for crimes like this. I believe there was the very rarely used one which had 30ish? people on it, but can't remember if this was revoked by the European courts.

Either way, I believe people who commit such crimes should stay in jail until they die. It's not about satisfaction, I gain no satisfaction from anyone gong to jail, but I believe the punishment for taking someone's life should be life in prison, in these circumstances certainly.
Click to expand...


I had understood that was a choler life sentence was an option. Although the European courts had ruled against them.

I agree with you. A life sentence should mean just that. I rather like the US system of jailing people for stupidly long periods of time. "Sure, you can have parole after you've served 1/3 of the 300 year sentence I'm giving you"
 
I completely disagree. I have great respect for the police and what they do, as a general rule. However a life is a life. You can make arguments for many different types of murders, we will all have our own views on which are worse, murder of children, police, firefighters, mums, military. The crime and effect on their families the same. For me, same crime, same punishment.
Click to expand...

Disagree all you like thats the reason why the Federation, and Police Officers in general are not happy about this. If you agree with this, then you are in effect giving the Government the green light to release Ian Bradey too. As yoiu say a life is a life, no matter who it is, Children or Police Officers.

There can be life sentence without parole.
Whole life terms are an option to the court if the situation warrants.
Click to expand...

Yes, now they are, then they were not. Hence the Judges comments, which in clearly indicate his intention with this sentence.
 
mid_gen said:
48 years inside. I don't see what benefit there is to keeping him at her majesty's pleasure.

Of course this thread was purely created to enable another 'shoot the ****ers' rant so....carry on :)
Click to expand...

Should should the F*****s
 
ST4 said:
I can't see how anyone could want to release someone that proactively killed 3 servicemen (police count as this). As a matter if national pride he should rot in jail
Click to expand...
TbF he only killed 2, and the guy that shot the other one was released from prison some time ago was he not?

it is really irrelevant what you think as he has served his sentence in prison as was given to him and he is released on license which if broken will put him back in prison. he spent 48 years in prison, most of his life. he has been significantly punished.
 
ST4 said:
I can't see how anyone could want to release someone that proactively killed 2 servicemen (police count as this). As a matter if national pride he should rot in jail
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you.
 
POAH said:
TbF he only killed 2, and the guy that shot the other one was released from prison some time ago was he not?

it is really irrelevant what you think as he has served his sentence in prison as was given to him and he is released on license which if broken will put him back in prison. he spent 48 years in prison, most of his life. he has been significantly punished.
Click to expand...

He only killed 2. That makes it alright then. He was a professional violent crim. we need to send a message to these types as we no longer have the death penalty that they'll never get freedom, even in old age.
 
ST4 said:
He only killed 2. That makes it alright then. He was a professional violent crim. we need to send a message to these types as we no longer have the death penalty that they'll never get freedom, even in old age.
Click to expand...
no but if you are going to be a whinny girl bitch you should at least get your facts right
 
ST4 said:
Excuse me, stop trolling with personal remarks. Ok, a point of pendantry, he only killed two whilst trying to escape custody, what a nice guy. I suddenly feel sorry for him.
Click to expand...

so it's ok for you to make comments on someone's behaviours but not me ;)

also did he not shoot them before the police got a chance to do anything so he wasn't actually being arrested or anything so another error in your post.
 
Last edited:
it is really irrelevant what you think as he has served his sentence in prison as was given to him and he is released on license which if broken will put him back in prison. he spent 48 years in prison, most of his life. he has been significantly punished.
Click to expand...

So should we release Ian Bradey using that logic?
 
Bernie174 said:
So should we release Ian Bradey using that logic?
Click to expand...

Without the issues of his being treated (against his wishes) under the mental health act, at this time he'd be as free as anyone else to apply for parole, and to be considered on merit.
He wouldn't apply though (he's made that clear). and even if he did his lack of remorse make it highly unlikely he'd ever succeed.
The judge in that case went one further than the one in the OP subject in that he didn't stipulate a term at all in years, and said that he didn't think Brady could ever be reformed.
He didn't say the same of Hindley.
 
POAH said:
that's different he has been judged not to be safe for release where as this guy has been given parole .
Click to expand...

Not strictly true.
He's never applied for parole, and has never been considered.
The only thing he has applied for is a return to a mainstream prison instead of a mental institution, but because he's made it clear he'd kill himself, that was refused.
 
that's different he has been judged not to be safe for release where as this guy has been given parole .
Click to expand...

No, it's only different because to you because it's emotive to you.

The same thing applies to me and most Police officers, current and past regarding his sentence and the principle on this subject, not do much him.

Just as society needs to know they are protected against the likes of Bradey, Police Officers need to know that when they are running towards the things you can run away from, that the danger to them is deterred as much as possible. The major reason why criminals think twice about killing a police officer is the knowledge that's it if they are caught. They will never see daylight again. Thats a bit deterrent, having dealt with criminals for a large portion of my working life, I know that to be the case. Remove that, and more Police Officers will die as a result.
 
norters said:
'Defence of the realm'. Lolololololololol :) It's not the nineteenth century any more darling!

To the point of the thread. Murderers should spend life in prison without parole however, this man poses no threat.

Anyway, I thought you hated the plod/fuzz/dibble.
Click to expand...

It still is the united kingdom and it needs defended from invasion by illegal means.

I agree with the bit in bold. For the crime of murder the sentence is about 3 things

1. Public safety. I agree he poses no threat
2. Punishment. I feel for the crime of murder life is life and the punishment has not been fulfilled.
3. Perception. It sends out the wrong message to release him.

I do not hate plod/fuzz/dibble. I hate their road policing policies etc but not them, per se.
 
Bernie174 said:
Disagree all you like thats the reason why the Federation, and Police Officers in general are not happy about this. If you agree with this, then you are in effect giving the Government the green light to release Ian Bradey too. As yoiu say a life is a life, no matter who it is, Children or Police Officers.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think I a saying Brady should be released. I'm saying the opposite, just that I don't believe the murderers of police officers or anyone should be treated differently, and that should mean life, no parole.
 
Sorry, I misunderstood.

I think there are circumstances where someone convicted of murder should serve less than life. For example someone who kills a relative who is suffering from a terminal disease, at the request of that relative. I'm sure there's other cases where that should also apply.
BUT, under no circumstances should someone who murders anyone who is preventing crime or enforcing law be released. That was the position until recently, although it is generally taken to mean murder of Police Officers, as I said originally it also includes other people assisting in policing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
So let me see if I have got this straight, @ST4 thinks all repeat junkies/nonces should be shot in the face, an act that as far as I am aware would definitely constitute murder as our law stands. He also believes that life should mean life for murderers, especially murderers of police officers. So Steve, do enlighten me, who is going deal with junkies and nonces, because I am 100% certain you aren't offering to spend the rest of your life in chokey.

As to the original topic...I am terribly fence prone on this, I can see both sides of the arguments and both have damn good arguments in favour of them - on balance, if I was really pushed I would probably come down on the side of leaving him locked up, simply because there are relatively few genuine life prisoners, and perhaps we should concentrate our efforts/money on rahabilitation/reintegration of those who can still play a meaningful part in society without such a huge media profile stigmatising everything they are likely to do on release anyway. Yes, I am aware that its bias based on the bloody media again, but it is also realistic.
 
ST4 said:
Change the law @Yv and to allow us to shoot people caught illegally entering Britain. I'd allow 3 drugs offences or crimes relating to drug offences before the bullet. It would maybe deter people going down that path.
Click to expand...

so you want certain types of murder legalising, you want to bring back capital punishment...mainly for crimes that can in the majority of cases be dealt with, especially if we had more resources to do so. Excellent. Thanks for clearing that up
 
ST4 said:
It's not murder to defend the borders of your country using force nor is it in my view murder to sentence someone to death by firing squad. Repeat drug offenders are a scourge on our society @Yv
Click to expand...

Soooo...wouldn't it make more sense to apply your theories to the people making the money out of the poor bloody addicts, rather than the addicts themselves? Shouldn't it be drug dealers that stand in front of your firing squad? Drug addicts can be helped, they have a biological addiction that can, with will on their part, be helped, but the addiction to the money made from drugs is far more vile surely? Just a thought....
 
ST4 said:
Change the law @Yv and to allow us to shoot people caught illegally entering Britain. I'd allow 3 drugs offences or crimes relating to drug offences before the bullet. It would maybe deter people going down that path.
Click to expand...

should do it for speeders too, they don't learn from their mistakes either
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top