National News PC Andrew Harper

This should be reflected in pay and rewards.

I resent the implication that their lives are intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's.
I think most life sentences without a tariff used to be 15 years minimum ( I’m sure scotchers will enlighten us on that one ) but as we know people who commit murder you hear the judge recommend a minimum tariff say 20 years minimum which is fare enough, but obviously relatives of the victim will call for a life for a life, however with emergency services you have a police officer going to m wards danger or to investigate a burglary and in the process gets killed by the perpetrator then yes life for life. A doctor or a nurse is tending to the infirm is killed by someone whist they are doing there job, they are trying to save life but to be killed in the line of duty should mean the perpetrator gets a whole life term same as a fire person.
All they are doing is trying to prevent or help other persons so to be killed in doing so should mean a whole life term.
If a civilian goes to help someone in distress and gets killed for doing so then the perpetrator should also get a whole life sentence
There is no right from wrong in murder but mitigating circumstances will always be taken into account by a judge before he hands down the sentence.
 
This should be reflected in pay and rewards.

I resent the implication that their lives are intrinsically more valuable than anyone else's.

If they are murdered while doing their job then they are receiving "pay and reward".

You can`t put a price on life in any circumstance, but you can put a starting point on a sentencing code.

An "aggravating factor" is the phrase IIRC.
 
Emergency service workers - those folk who go towards danger while the rest of us are, generally, going the other way.
I'm aware of that. I imagine they are too when they sign up for the job. I still don't think we should create a legally enshrined hierarchy of which lives are more important than others
 
If they are murdered while doing their job then they are receiving "pay and reward".

You can`t put a price on life in any circumstance, but you can put a starting point on a sentencing code.

An "aggravating factor" is the phrase IIRC.

To be clearer then, let the pay and reward amply reflect the risk.

Why value the job and life more only once it's been taken?
 
I think the traditional basis for giving more severe sentences to people who kill police is that respect for the law underpins society, and disregarding that makes the crime of murder worse. But this government probably just thought it would appeal to thick people
 
To be clearer then, let the pay and reward amply reflect the risk.

Why value the job and life more only once it's been taken?

It`s a tool in a toolbox to help better protect those who choose to protect us.
 
It`s a tool in a toolbox to help better protect those who choose to protect us.

An ineffective one I'd say. Do we really believe that someone who is going to kill an emergency worker will stop to consider whether it's worth a few extra years in prison?

If it was about punishment then I could at least accept the logic of the argument.
 
To be clearer then, let the pay and reward amply reflect the risk.

Why value the job and life more only once it's been taken?

You are quite right. I think we can all agree that the sentences dished out by the judge were appallingly lenient. The fact these pieces of sh*t are going are going to be free men when they are in their early 30s with their whole lives ahead of them is a disgrace.

But you have to ask yourself if the owner of the quad bike had come out instead to defend his property and got dragged along by a car to his or her death, is that any less of a crime? Of course it isn't. An innocent person has been killed trying to prevent a crime from happening.
 
Before jumping solely on the police because their lives might be ‘worth more’ than anyone else, the new offence covers amongst others, fire, ambulance and police, the very people who are there to protect us and respond to our emergencies, often life threatening or life changing. These are people we turn to when all else has probably failed, they are often our last resort and deserve this extra ‘protection’.
By the way, the new offence also covers prison officers..
 
An ineffective one I'd say. Do we really believe that someone who is going to kill an emergency worker will stop to consider whether it's worth a few extra years in prison?

If it was about punishment then I could at least accept the logic of the argument.

I`m surmising most right-minded people don`t go about the course of their day looking to kill someone.

In the case of PC Harper, despite one of them allegedly asking to turn the radio up to drown out his screams, they probably didn`t go out to kill either but a chain of events, however unlikely, led to his death.

However, that doesn`t exonerate them from the fact they continued the chain of events beyond the point of "doing the right thing" and stopping for the police.

If it was about punishment then my "socio-conservative-Taliban" kicks in and they would be confined in a wooden box about 6ft down.
 
I`m surmising most right-minded people don`t go about the course of their day looking to kill someone.

In the case of PC Harper, despite one of them allegedly asking to turn the radio up to drown out his screams, they probably didn`t go out to kill either but a chain of events, however unlikely, led to his death.

However, that doesn`t exonerate them from the fact they continued the chain of events beyond the point of "doing the right thing" and stopping for the police.

If it was about punishment then my "socio-conservative-Taliban" kicks in and they would be confined in a wooden box about 6ft down.

I'm not really sure what point you're making here.
 
Harsher sentences offer zero extra protection to emergency services workers.
 
I fundamentally disagree that a law should position the life of policemen as more important than that of civilians. Feels really horrendous, to be honest and i can't believe a government is giving it the time of day

The laws regarding murder haven't changed. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence whether an emergency worker or Joe Bloggs is killed. No one life is seen as any more important than another.

This ruling is about taking manslaughter off the table so that if you are unable to claim that you that killed without malice, forethought or intent. Basically, if you knowingly attack an emergency working in the line of their duty, you are doing so knowing that you are responsible for what happens to them.

As others have said, these are people who run towards danger when others are running away. They put the safety of others before themselves and deserve the greatest protection the law can offer them.
 
The laws regarding murder haven't changed. Murder carries a mandatory life sentence whether an emergency worker or Joe Bloggs is killed. No one life is seen as any more important than another.

This ruling is about taking manslaughter off the table so that if you are unable to claim that you that killed without malice, forethought or intent. Basically, if you knowingly attack an emergency working in the line of their duty, you are doing so knowing that you are responsible for what happens to them.

As others have said, these are people who run towards danger when others are running away. They put the safety of others before themselves and deserve the greatest protection the law can offer them.
I may have misunderstood the new Harpers law ( its likely i have ) ....iam i correct in presuming that Harpers law means that its a mandatory life sentence if an emergency worker is killed by someone while said someone is commiting a crime? ....if that is correct, driving at say 29mph in a 20 mile an hour zone is committing a crime, and if due to whatever circumstances an emergency worked is sadly run over & killed by the aforementioned someone while exceeding the speed limit, that someone is facing a mandatory life sentence? ...or have i understood it wrongly?
 
I may have misunderstood the new Harpers law ( its likely i have ) ....iam i correct in presuming that Harpers law means that its a mandatory life sentence if an emergency worker is killed by someone while said someone is commiting a crime? ....if that is correct, driving at say 29mph in a 20 mile an hour zone is committing a crime, and if due to whatever circumstances an emergency worked is sadly run over & killed by the aforementioned someone while exceeding the speed limit, that someone is facing a mandatory life sentence? ...or have i understood it wrongly?

We will have to wait to see the exact wording on the statute book. However, it seems that manslaughter of an emergency worker will now carry a mandatory life sentence as opposed to a determinate sentence. This means that someone does not have a conditional release date but will serve a minimum tariff before being considered for release.

I can't see a way in which this would apply to a "standard" road traffic accident where the speed limit was broken in the example given. However, if (as has happened) a police officer deploying a stinger to stop a fleeing vehicle is deliberately struck by that vehicle and killed, then we would see manslaughter charges (and life sentence) rather than death by dangerous/reckless driving.
 
We will have to wait to see the exact wording on the statute book. However, it seems that manslaughter of an emergency worker will now carry a mandatory life sentence as opposed to a determinate sentence. This means that someone does not have a conditional release date but will serve a minimum tariff before being considered for release.

I can't see a way in which this would apply to a "standard" road traffic accident where the speed limit was broken in the example given. However, if (as has happened) a police officer deploying a stinger to stop a fleeing vehicle is deliberately struck by that vehicle and killed, then we would see manslaughter charges (and life sentence) rather than death by dangerous/reckless driving.

There is an “exceptional circumstances” let out.
I don’t know what this might be but for instance an emergency worker in the wrong place and unconnected to the criminal act.
 
Back
Top Bottom