Harper's law Petition

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...

Absolutely! Certainly would not sign a petition like this.
 
RossGReds said:
Why should you get a harsher sentence just because it's police? Don't agree with that one.
Click to expand...

Maybe been looking at what they have in america (ew).

I have absolutely zero hard details on hand but I recall some scrote shooting a policewoman when he was pulled over and because she was a federal rather than state officer it was a large increase in the penalty.
 
Hotwired said:
Maybe been looking at what they have in america (ew).

I have absolutely zero hard details on hand but I recall some scrote shooting a policewoman when he was pulled over and because she was a federal rather than state officer it was a large increase in the penalty.
Click to expand...

It might be this, she gets shot twice, then chases the guy down, as she's part of an inter agency operation, she's sworn in as federal as well as local so it's a double hit in the prosecution.

 
cheesyboy said:
Well, it wasn't a popular proposal here on the forum, but the law is happening :

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ling-emergency-workers-to-bring-life-sentence

Life sentence if your crime kills an on-duty emergency services worker.
Click to expand...
What a terrible idea. Unintended consequences abound, plus the implication that a fireman's life is worth more than say a student, stay at home mum, judge, or plumber just because of their job.

But then it plays well in the tabloid press so not surprised that this government went ahead and did it anyway.
 
Adam_151 said:
The sentiment is there, but i can't help but feel what they are requesting is rather open ended in some respects and rather specific in others.

So its limited to those professions?, is that just when on duty or at all times? and the only bar is that they have killed one of those as a result of crime they have committed, which could include careless driving caused by a moments lapse in concentration, which while sad shouldn't invoke this, the sentence should not be affected by the job title of the unfrotunate.


I have grave mis-givings about this petition, and consider it an emotional resposne rather than a logical one, and needs a bit more work.

I suppose we are back down to that awkward intent question again..... we can't prove beyond resonable doubt that they intended to kill him, but we probably can prove that they didn't really care if they did as long as they got away from him.. but how to make a rule to catch such cases....

.... something along the lines of much longer sentences for manslaughter that occurs as a result of trying to commit another crime would probably work, in this case, the manslaughter was proven, the trying to commit another crime could be easily done so, even if it wasn't done in this case becuase they had bigger charges to get him on.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it is possible for a judge to hand down a life sentence for manslaughter in the UK. I assume sentencing guidelines make this unlikely.

To me, a review of existing sentencing guidelines would seem a better way forward.

That could take "manslaughter when engaged in criminal activity" into account with a harsher sentencing regime.

That would be quicker and easier to do, and stop the endless lobbying for inclusion on a list of professions. Why not HMRC officers, coastguard and loads of others?
 
I think any law that provides more legal weight to a class and breaks isonomy must also provide it in kind such that any crimes that said class (police officers and nurses) commits should be similarly treated with the rationale that they've betrayed the public's trust.

Also find it silly that it doesn't serve to protect the whole range of public services, surely it would be effortless to add them? Hopefully we can expand it to cover MP's and Lords so that when they betray the public trust they're going straight to jail rather than the usual slap on the wrist.
 
Last edited:
Burnsy2023 said:
Do you think the killer of a baby should be sentenced the same as a middle aged adult?
Click to expand...
What would be your reason for answering "no" to that question? And which would you propose to be worse?

My answer right now would be "yes", as I don't see the difference in worth between a baby's life or a middle-aged person's life. Is losing a parent better than losing a child? Is a family losing their main breadwinner better than losing a child?

But I'm interested in hearing your take on it.
 
Anyone seen the working of how a mandatory life sentence specifically for killing an emergency service worker on duty protects emergency service workers?

Don't recall death sentences preventing murders.

This is emotional revenge sneaking in as law.
 
No one life or more valuable than the next (lol right) but police either deserve better protection (i.e. this is a good deterrent) or better pay to commensurate the risk that they are no different to Kyle Rittenhouse without the LARP element.

Agree its poorly summarised.
 
I agree that if someone kills a police officer who is trying to apprehend them then they should receive a tougher sentence. However, I presume in this instance they'd also be facing charges for resisting arrest on top of the murder and their original crime so naturally would get a tougher sentence.

However if we aspire to everyone is equal then sentencing should be the same irrespective of who the perpetrator or victim is else is smacks of animal farm.
 
A crime against a state employee always worse...for the Government.
Emotive 'treason' or 'terrorists' successful rise the hackles a lot more than plain old fashioned murder.
Killing a pleb - meh.
But try and kill someone with a political motive....well you're for it sunny Jim.
 
GreatAuk said:
What a terrible idea. Unintended consequences abound, plus the implication that a fireman's life is worth more than say a student, stay at home mum, judge, or plumber just because of their job.

But then it plays well in the tabloid press so not surprised that this government went ahead and did it anyway.
Click to expand...

Its popular on Twitter so it gets passed, this govt is remarkably quick to change direction in whatever direction social media is pointing its doubtful much judicial review or debating was done in parliament on it either. Got to chase those populist votes eh Boris?
 
Custor said:
A crime against a state employee always worse...for the Government.
Click to expand...

The sheer number of emergency service worker assaults that never get to court or get pitiful sentencing when they do suggests otherwise. For police especially, it's often seen as "part of the job".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom