Life Means Life

eddiemcgarrigle · 15 May 2013 at 09:23

So, it is being reported today that if someone where to kill a Police Officer or a Prison Warden they can expect to live out the rest of their life in prison and will ultimately die in prison.

While I agree with this, shouldn't it be expanded? Shouldn't any murder carry the sentence of no release? Is it time we stopped being soft on criminals?

davido_labido · 15 May 2013 at 09:26

well yes, im not sure why police or prison wardens are seen as superior?

if they take a life, they should spend the rest of theirs in prison. simple.

Name · 15 May 2013 at 09:26

This is a ridiculous decision, i mean its good in the sense that life means life...

But why only limit it to people who kill Police officers? e.g. Dale Creegan.

This ruling should apply to ANY murder. Basic murder is what...8 years and out in 4 with good behaviour? its a joke.

deuse · 15 May 2013 at 09:28

Yes it should be expanded.

Orionaut · 15 May 2013 at 09:29

davido_labido said:
well yes, im not sure why police or prison wardens are seen as superior?

An attack on a Police officer is an attack on the state! Obviously, as such, this is considered far more serious an offence than an attack on a mere citizen!

Wizardskills · 15 May 2013 at 09:32

Name said:
Basic murder is what...8 years and out in 4 with good behaviour? its a joke.

I'm pretty sure this is not the case :rolleyes:

.

However, I'm not sure what is so special about the murder of a police officer over the murder of anyone else. The crimes are just as bad as one another and should be treated as such.

mattyg · 15 May 2013 at 09:32

Orionaut said:
An attack on a Police officer is an attack on the state! Obviously, as such, this is considered far more serious an offence than an attack on a mere citizen!

I think going back a number of years the thought process was if your prepared to kill a police officer then you're prepared to Kill anyone.

AJK · 15 May 2013 at 09:35

eddiemcgarrigle said:
Shouldn't any murder carry the sentence of no release? Is it time we stopped being soft on criminals?

Yes (or death - controversial?) and yes.

DanielMMS · 15 May 2013 at 09:42

eddiemcgarrigle said:
So, it is being reported today that if someone where to kill a Police Officer or a Prison Warden they can expect to live out the rest of their life in prison and will ultimately die in prison.

While I agree with this, shouldn't it be expanded? Shouldn't any murder carry the sentence of no release? Is it time we stopped being soft on criminals?

Can't say I think this appropriate and certainly don't think it should be extended - this is based on experience in a number of murder trials during my pupilages many years ago. To set a blanket rule in this way ignores the fact that no one case will be the same - there will always be unique factors. With this in mind, it is essential that, whilst there should be sentencing guidelines, the sentencing court should have the discretion to set an appropriate punishment based upon the circumstances of the individual crime. At present, there is already the ability to set whole life sentences so I really do not see why this proposal is relevant except insofar as it makes the government look as though they are acting tough and appeases the police.

elmarko · 15 May 2013 at 09:45

I see no reason as to why killing a police officer should be considered worse than killing a random citizen.

Equality of application of the law is very important in society, even more so in a society with a heavily involved government.

Police officers are enforcers of the law, which can be altered by our political system - no aspect of our political system (which includes police) should be above the standard law (by having exceptions).

eddiemcgarrigle said:
While I agree with this, shouldn't it be expanded? Shouldn't any murder carry the sentence of no release? Is it time we stopped being soft on criminals?

Who said we are soft on criminals?, we have one of the harshest retributive justice systems in Europe & enjoy a much higher crime rate & significantly higher re-offender rate.

But hey, let's not let reality & facts get in the way of the good old Daily Mail style rant on a subject you clearly have done little research on.

Wizardskills · 15 May 2013 at 09:47

DanielMMS said:
Can't say I think this appropriate and certainly don't think it should be extended - this is based on experience in a number of murder trials during my pupilages many years ago. To set a blanket rule in this way ignores the fact that no one case will be the same - there will always be unique factors. With this in mind, it is essential that, whilst there should be sentencing guidelines, the sentencing court should have the discretion to set an appropriate punishment based upon the circumstances of the individual crime. At present, there is already the ability to set whole life sentences so I really do not see why this proposal is relevant except insofar as it makes the government look as though they are acting tough and appeases the police.

I 100% agree with this.

DanielMMS · 15 May 2013 at 09:50

elmarko said:
I see no reason as to why killing a police officer should be considered worse than killing a random citizen.

The argument seems to be that they are the upholders of the law and, whilst everyone else will be running from danger, they would be running towards it to protect the population at large. Whilst I sympathise with that it is still not sufficient, as far as I am concerned, for their lives to be considered as being worth more than the average citizen. In fact, I am very uncomfortable with that type of classification.

eatcustard · 15 May 2013 at 09:50

Life for Pedos and gang rapers

Dis86 · 15 May 2013 at 09:52

Is some of the reasoning behind this that some crimes are classed as 'crimes of passion' for example a wife murdering her husband after she finds out he's having an affair? Often in such a case there is significant regret following the crime.

If someone murders a police officer however they can only have really gone out with the intent to kill for the sake of killing a public protector?

Glaucus · 15 May 2013 at 09:54

This could be bad, all depends how it's worded. If its pre meditated murder only that's fine. If its badly worded and can start pinning any death on it that's bad. So many are poorly worded.

I don't think we need to get harsher. We need a total rethink and move away from punishment and focus on public safety and rehabilitation. It makes nos else punishing for the sake of it, when most criminals will be released. Therefore what ever gives the best chance of rehabilitation should be used, as most will be released its best to give them the best chance of not re-offending.
In the same token, we seem to release people who are a danger to the public but they were sentenced for 10years so they are released regardless.

Wizardskills · 15 May 2013 at 09:57

Dis86 said:
Is some of the reasoning behind this that some crimes are classed as 'crimes of passion' for example a wife murdering her husband after she finds out he's having an affair? Often in such a case there is significant regret following the crime.

If someone murders a police officer however they can only have really gone out with the intent to kill for the sake of killing a public protector?

What if your partner is a police officer?

elmarko · 15 May 2013 at 09:58

Dis86 said:
If someone murders a police officer however they can only have really gone out with the intent to kill for the sake of killing a public protector?

Not really, a person expecting to spend the rest of his life in prison killing a police officer during an attempt to evade capture (while it's still a horrible act) is closer to self defence than say randomly killing a baby or a child.

The police & the government are not immune from corruption.

[FnG]magnolia · 15 May 2013 at 10:05

DanielMMS said:
Can't say I think this appropriate and certainly don't think it should be extended - this is based on experience in a number of murder trials during my pupilages many years ago. To set a blanket rule in this way ignores the fact that no one case will be the same - there will always be unique factors. With this in mind, it is essential that, whilst there should be sentencing guidelines, the sentencing court should have the discretion to set an appropriate punishment based upon the circumstances of the individual crime. At present, there is already the ability to set whole life sentences so I really do not see why this proposal is relevant except insofar as it makes the government look as though they are acting tough and appeases the police.

This isn't an ill thought out knee jerk reaction so I'm not sure what you thought you were doing posting it here but I agree with you 100%.

MikeB · 15 May 2013 at 10:08

What's the point of whole life sentences, there can be no element of reform, either give light at end of the tunnel or bring back the death penalty

theleg · 15 May 2013 at 10:11

The idea of blanket rulings like this doesnt sit right with me. Each and every case should be looked at individually and should be ruled upon based on its own specific circumstances. If judicial discretion is redundant, why not just get the whole system working on computers or something. Do away with judges, let machines decide.

and the idea of 'life means life' is just revenge and i dont believe it has a place in a modern, progressive society. if someone remains a danger, then by all means keep them in prison until the end of time...but if someone is legit rehabilitated, they should be released (provided proper protocols are in place).

You either have a punishment/revenge system or you have a rehabilitation system. You cant have both at the same time. You cant claim to want to rehabilitate offenders and then say EVERYONE who kills a police officer will die in prison regardless of any rehabilitation. Its just ridiculous.

Minds need to be made up.