Harper's law Petition

The Running Man said:
The public are not the police,

This guy was just getting his bike back from a thief and he got 10 years in prison. If he was a policeman he would have just been doing his job?

Screenshot-20201217-210422-Chrome.jpg
Click to expand...


That was not just "getting his bike back" that was a very deliberate act of dangerous driving that resulted in a fairly predictable death, and shows why the police don't tend to try and ram bikes except under very specific circumstances.
 
Last edited:
As unfortunate as this guys death is and obviously traumatic for his widow, no I don't think certain professions should be differentiated like this, especially with something like mandatory sentencing, which I'd be against in principle anyway.
 
As others have said there's a risk of prioritising the death/murder/manslaughter of one profession over another. If we flip the coin, it's clear that crimes against professions such as prostitution hold much lower sentencing than 'mainstream' professions. We know this to be wrong, but it happens anyway. I'd suggest a case-by-case system was required, with leniency from judges etc. Unfortunately it seems these days most criminals are let off too easily regardless of the crime.
 
Arsonist said:
As others have said there's a risk of prioritising the death/murder/manslaughter of one profession over another. If we flip the coin, it's clear that crimes against professions such as prostitution hold much lower sentencing than 'mainstream' professions. We know this to be wrong, but it happens anyway. I'd suggest a case-by-case system was required, with leniency from judges etc. Unfortunately it seems these days most criminals are let off too easily regardless of the crime.
Click to expand...

Name checks out.
 
The Running Man said:
Haven't the police been ramming people on scooters for a while now as its the only way they can stop them?
Click to expand...
IIRC they may do - but like many things the police do they'll do it when they've assessed the risk as being reasonable, and will have done some training for it.

They won't ram a scooter travelling at speed at a random location, because oddly enough like most of the things the police have exemptions for in the law, they also have limits and if things go wrong the police have to be able to justify their use of the force when they are then investigated, especially if the person on the scooter dies.
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC they may do - but like many things the police do they'll do it when they've assessed the risk as being reasonable, and will have done some training for it.

They won't ram a scooter travelling at speed at a random location, because oddly enough like most of the things the police have exemptions for in the law, they also have limits and if things go wrong the police have to be able to justify their use of the force when they are then investigated, especially if the person on the scooter dies.
Click to expand...

Its not really his fault that the deceased was riding without insurance, a helmet and had just stolen his bike!

The justification being there is no other way to stop these bikes, as the police well know which is why they took to ramming them in the first place.


montymint said:
Do the police flee the scene too?
Click to expand...

Mostly the police never enter the scene until its all over. Mostly.

Had we a competent police force and a justice system that really deals with offenders you cant help but applaud those who solve the case themselves
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Do you think the killer of a baby should be sentenced the same as a middle aged adult?
Click to expand...
Good question but it's actually the reason I disagree with the law. Why should someone who murders a member of the emergency services be treated any differently to someone who murders a child? In my mind they shouldn't so I do still agree all murderers should be treated the same and get life.
 
If sentencing was high regardless of who the victim is, then treat them all the same regardless of the victim. Life being life etc.

However, since sentences seem to be quite lenient at times and life is rarely life, I would prefer to see sentencing scale based on who the victim is, providing of course there is evidence to show that they knew the victim was a police officer, doctor/nurse, child etc.
It just makes the decision that much more heinous to take such a life compared to another.

But I doubt anything will change, it’ll continue to at least appear to be wishy-washy.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Do you think the killer of a baby should be sentenced the same as a middle aged adult?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because as soon as you say different, we then have to establish a scale of life worth. And that is a very dangerous idea. How much is a tramp worth? I doctor? A nurse? Is a nurse worth more or less than a doctor? Why? What about an MP? A lawyer? Is a lawyer who works for the prosecution worth more or less than one who works for the defence?
 
Meridian said:
Yes. Because as soon as you say different, we then have to establish a scale of life worth. And that is a very dangerous idea. How much is a tramp worth? I doctor? A nurse? Is a nurse worth more or less than a doctor? Why? What about an MP? A lawyer? Is a lawyer who works for the prosecution worth more or less than one who works for the defence?
Click to expand...

There are precedents in some countries. In early medieval England, for example, it was called wer(e)gild. The value of a life varied greatly depending on the person's social class, wealth and sometimes sex (which varied - sometimes a woman's life was worth more than a man's life, sometimes the other way around). Kill a landless peasant, pay 40 shillings to their family. Kill a rich noble, pay 2,000 shillings to their family. That sort of thing.

It made sense in those days and it was better than the system of blood feud that it replaced. But I think it would be a bad idea today, for the same reason you give.
 
Don't agree with a law that would place people on different levels of worthiness of justice based on their chosen profession, so won't sign it. They should have got more time, but that should apply whether it was a police officer or not, the problem is lenient sentences across the board, making a tiered system of justice isn't the answer to that problem.
 
Mucky_Pup said:
Don't agree with a law that would place people on different levels of worthiness of justice based on their chosen profession, so won't sign it. They should have got more time, but that should apply whether it was a police officer or not, the problem is lenient sentences across the board, making a tiered system of justice isn't the answer to that problem.
Click to expand...

The problem.is compounded by concurrent sentencing as opposed to consecutive in many cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom