Were their sentence's to lenient

can't remember did he get done for murder or did he do a deal with the CPS for a less charge of manslaughter if the last then 16 years seems about right ( not in my book)
 
No way were any of the 3 sentences long enough, tired of hearing about closed door deals or reduced sentences for pleading guilty.
 
Martin its been going on for years i used to be a dock officer in the courts and seen it every day
 
Kingo46 said:
can't remember did he get done for murder or did he do a deal with the CPS for a less charge of manslaughter if the last then 16 years seems about right ( not in my book)
Click to expand...
Neither. He was found guilty of manslaughter. He couldn't be convicted of murder because of the lack of intent, but could have been sentenced to life.
 
tarric said:
From what I have seen of her so far I had thought Attorney General Suella Braverman was a bit of a plonker but maybe not.

www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/andrew-harper-appeal-life-sentence-b115992.html
Click to expand...
She's a bit of a plonker and you ought to hear what actual experienced legal professionals say about her, most of which would get me banned from here :naughty:. She's never acted in a criminal trial, yet here she is turning up as counsel at a high profile criminal appeal hearing. Her speciality in the five years she was a barrister was planning law and commercial litigation. The government employs some very experienced barristers that could have handled this, but she isn't one of them. She's only a Queens Counsel due to her political office which grants the title automatically, not having earned silk through experience.

Basically it's grandstanding and trying to cow the judges with her political position.
 
I believe a life sentence should be mandatory for killing, causing the death of, or seriously injuring, a police officer during the execution of their duty, unless it can be proven without doubt that the fatality or injury was purely accidental. For instance, a police officer being accidentally knocked down by a vehicle belonging to a third party while running across a road whilst in pursuit of a suspect.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I believe a life sentence should be mandatory for killing, causing the death of, or seriously injuring, a police officer during the execution of their duty, unless it can be proven without doubt that the fatality or injury was purely accidental. For instance, a police officer being accidentally knocked down by a vehicle belonging to a third party while running across a road whilst in pursuit of a suspect.
Click to expand...
I understand why you might think that, but I strongly disagree.

I understand because anyone who works for a living should have a reasonable expectation of going home to their family after work. I have a very close family member who gave up the job that he really wanted to do (Prison Officer in a young offenders institution) because he was attacked so often, and stabbed twice. He moved sideways and is now an immigration officer, earning a lot less and doing work that seems to him to be far less valuable but much safer. And I know an ex-police officer who had to leave his job because someone hit him over the head with an iron bar. The criminal was sentenced to 16 years but the victim had to leave the police and will never fully recover from his injuries. If you're looking for a really dangerous occupation, with zero support and a very high death and serious injury rate, that occupation is farming, which is mostly carried out at minimum pay.

But I strongly disagree because one of the roles of a police officer is to stand between the public and criminals, protecting us from them, just as the military stand between enemies of the state and the public. And this makes sense, because the public are untrained, don't have any backup and aren't allowed to carry weapons, so need to have protection.

And yet, whilst the military accept that they sign up to risks, and both they and the public accept that it's necessary for the military to be killed and injured on duty sometimes, the police seem to me to consider the death or injury of a police officer to be somehow more rather than less important than the death or injury of a civilian, and I find that difficult to accept.

In the case we're talking about, PC Andrew Harper did his very best and, in effect if not in law, was murdered. My personal view is that the low life who killed him should serve very long sentences, but the judges need to take account of their youth, and also that they were raised in a thieving community in which they were no doubt taught by example to rob, steal and use violence. And they usually get away with it, simply because the police tend to leave them alone, because of the risk of violence.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I understand why you might think that, but I strongly disagree.

I understand because anyone who works for a living should have a reasonable expectation of going home to their family after work. I have a very close family member who gave up the job that he really wanted to do (Prison Officer in a young offenders institution) because he was attacked so often, and stabbed twice. He moved sideways and is now an immigration officer, earning a lot less and doing work that seems to him to be far less valuable but much safer. And I know an ex-police officer who had to leave his job because someone hit him over the head with an iron bar. The criminal was sentenced to 16 years but the victim had to leave the police and will never fully recover from his injuries. If you're looking for a really dangerous occupation, with zero support and a very high death and serious injury rate, that occupation is farming, which is mostly carried out at minimum pay.

But I strongly disagree because one of the roles of a police officer is to stand between the public and criminals, protecting us from them, just as the military stand between enemies of the state and the public. And this makes sense, because the public are untrained, don't have any backup and aren't allowed to carry weapons, so need to have protection.

And yet, whilst the military accept that they sign up to risks, and both they and the public accept that it's necessary for the military to be killed and injured on duty sometimes, the police seem to me to consider the death or injury of a police officer to be somehow more rather than less important than the death or injury of a civilian, and I find that difficult to accept.

In the case we're talking about, PC Andrew Harper did his very best and, in effect if not in law, was murdered. My personal view is that the low life who killed him should serve very long sentences, but the judges need to take account of their youth, and also that they were raised in a thieving community in which they were no doubt taught by example to rob, steal and use violence. And they usually get away with it, simply because the police tend to leave them alone, because of the risk of violence.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, Garry, but I really don't see why any of what you have said there can be used as a reason to strongly disagree with what I proposed. :thinking:

It's time we protected our police force, times have changed and I believe the law needs to be amended accordingly to give police officers better protection while carrying out their duties. An alternative, of course, would be to give every police officer a gun... and I know how much you'd hate to see that.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
I'm sorry, Garry, but I really don't see why any of what you have said there can be used as a reason to strongly disagree with what I proposed. :thinking:

It's time we protected our police force, times have changed and I believe the law needs to be amended accordingly to give police officers better protection while carrying out their duties. An alternative, of course, would be to give every police officer a gun... and I know how much you'd hate to see that.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I didn't explain my views adequately . . .
The Courts already have all the powers they need. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is the same as for murder, a life sentence. And in cases of murder they can also impose whole-life sentences, I think that about 36 people have been sentenced to this. Harry Roberts is an example of how the law works.. He served 48 years for murdering 3 police officers and wasn't released until he was 78, by which time he probably wasn't a threat to anyone else.

Judges don't always get it right, and if the Attorney General thinks that they've been too lenient then there's a process that can put things right, which is being followed in this case.

Your proposal is for a mandatory life sentence for anyone who kills or seriously injures a police officer, and this wouldn't work for two main reasons:
1. Judges need to be able to exercise discretion and take the circumstances into account, that's why we have them.
2. When people face a mandatory life sentence they have nothing to lose, and would likely lead to much greater violence.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Perhaps I didn't explain my views adequately . . .
The Courts already have all the powers they need. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is the same as for murder, a life sentence. And in cases of murder they can also impose whole-life sentences, I think that about 36 people have been sentenced to this. Harry Roberts is an example of how the law works.. He served 48 years for murdering 3 police officers and wasn't released until he was 78, by which time he probably wasn't a threat to anyone else.

Judges don't always get it right, and if the Attorney General thinks that they've been too lenient then there's a process that can put things right, which is being followed in this case.

Your proposal is for a mandatory life sentence for anyone who kills or seriously injures a police officer, and this wouldn't work for two main reasons:
1. Judges need to be able to exercise discretion and take the circumstances into account, that's why we have them.
2. When people face a mandatory life sentence they have nothing to lose, and would likely lead to much greater violence.
Click to expand...
That's a better explanation, thanks. The idea of a mandatory life sentence would be to act as a deterrent, and make people realise that killing or seriously injuring a police officer is not a good idea. Thinking about it, perhaps a life sentence for serious (life changing) injury and a whole-life sentence for causing death would work better.
 
Last edited:
my own personal thoughts are we need to move away from this almost a life for a life attitude and focus on why?
I remember looking at this story when it happened and the owner of the quad bike actually parked it out front of his house
to tempt the thieves? he even admitted leaving the £10k bike unsecured. whilst not an excuse i am fed up of people not making attempts to secure their property simply expecting the police to "do the right thing" when it suits them.
 
onomatopoeia said:
Basically it's grandstanding and trying to cow the judges with her political position.
Click to expand...
According to the Wikipedia article...
Braverman was called to the bar at Middle Temple in 2005. She completed her pupillage at 2–3 Gray's Inn Square (now Cornerstone Barristers) and then was based at No5 Chambers in London specialising in commercial litigation, judicial review, immigration, and planning law. She was appointed to the Attorney General's C Panel of Counsel in 2010
Click to expand...
While she may lack the criminal experience, my guess is that she knows enough to put her case to the appeal judges.
 
Garry Edwards said:
1. Judges need to be able to exercise discretion and take the circumstances into account, that's why we have them.
Click to expand...
Some American states give the task of setting the sentence to the jury. I'm of the opinion that this is a procedure we should consider adopting.
Garry Edwards said:
2. When people face a mandatory life sentence they have nothing to lose, and would likely lead to much greater violence.
Click to expand...
The same argument that was used to abolish hanging.

I would draw your attention to the incontravertible fact that there is no recorded instance of recidivism among murderers who have been hung. Against this, there were 35 homicides comitted by people released after serving sentences for homicide in the period 2000-2010 in the UK. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227 )
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Some American states give the task of setting the sentence to the jury. I'm of the opinion that this is a procedure we should consider adopting.
The same argument that was used to abolish hanging.

I would draw your attention to the incontravertible fact that there is no recorded instance of recidivism among murderers who have been hung. Against this, there were 35 homicides comitted by people released after serving sentences for homicide in the period 2000-2010 in the UK. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227 )
Click to expand...
Fair point, but there's a problem when people who've been hanged can't commit a second murder because they were innocent of the first one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
 
Garry Edwards said:
Fair point, but there's a problem when people who've been hanged can't commit a second murder because they were innocent of the first one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_execution
Click to expand...
I believe the death sentence should be given to those where there is no shadow of a doubt, such as Harold Shipman, Hindley and Brady, etc. Why should the tax payer have to keep murderers like that for the rest of their lives at vast expense when we could just put them to sleep as we do with sick animals.
 
Last edited:
Mr Badger said:
Why should the tax payer have to keep murderers like that for the rest of their lives at vast expense...
Click to expand...
I lack the political correctness gene and so am unable to argue with you. :naughty: :coat:
 
Mr Badger said:
I believe the death sentence should be given to those where there is no shadow of a doubt, such as Harold Shipman, Hindley and Brady, etc. Why should the tax payer have to keep murderers like that for the rest of their lives at vast expense when we could just put them to sleep as we do with sick animals.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that every person hanged for a murder that they didn't commit was considered by the jury to be guilty beyond all doubt at the time. In the case of Timothy Evans, he was convicted on the false evidence of the real murderer, John Christie. In the case of Derek Bentley, he was convicted on the false evidence of police officers. Both were poor people who couldn't afford competent legal representation. Arguably, with the very sophisticated forensic science that we have today, it wouldn't now happen - but how can we be sure? After all, no system is perfect and there have been plenty of recent cases in which innocent people have been convicted, usually because of dishonest or incompetent "expert witnesses". Fortunately for them, they weren't hanged.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I would draw your attention to the incontravertible fact that there is no recorded instance of recidivism among murderers who have been hung. Against this, there were 35 homicides comitted by people released after serving sentences for homicide in the period 2000-2010 in the UK. ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16638227 )
Click to expand...

On this basis it would be ideal if applied to many offences like speeding or shop lifting. After all, no-one executed ever did any of those things again, and with the added benefit of reducing the prison population too. [emoji6]
 
Last edited:
if we hang murderers I'll be out of a job
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top