Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 16 May '13 11:00 / 2 edits
    Here is an article, its just been in the News and Theresa May got a round of applause from the police federation for her policy;

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4928210/Murdering-a-police-officer-to-mean-whole-life-in-prison.html

    Is this right? I sympathise with the argument, the police do put themselves in danger and need protection.

    But - for discussion - a famous UK court case was the Derek Bentley trial
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Bentley_case

    Is there a case for self defense, the police sometimes break into peoples houses, or for diminished responsability as with Derek Bentley?

    Your thoughts?
  2. 16 May '13 11:36 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by e4chris
    Here is an article, its just been in the News and Theresa May got a round of applause from the police federation for her policy;

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4928210/Murdering-a-police-officer-to-mean-whole-life-in-prison.html

    Is this right? I sympathise the argument, the police do put themselves in danger and need protection.

    ...[text shortened]... k into peoples houses, or for diminished responsability as with Derek Bentley?

    Your thoughts?
    There are 2 issues here.

    The examples you give would most likely, if applicable, result in the person either being acquitted of murder, or the sentence reduced to manslaughter. So the whole of life tariff point would not apply in any case.

    The other issue is whether the murder of a particular type of person should carry a tougher sentence.

    As I don't support higher sentences for, say, racially aggravated offences, I don't support a mandatory whole of life sentence for killing a police officer.

    I would be distressed, in fact, if someone got a tougher sentence for killing a police officer than for murdering my 7 year old son.
  3. 16 May '13 12:02
    Originally posted by Rank outsider
    There are 2 issues here.

    The examples you give would most likely, if applicable, result in the person either being acquitted of murder, or the sentence reduced to manslaughter. So the whole of life tariff point would not apply in any case.

    The other issue is whether the murder of a particular type of person should carry a tougher sentence.

    A ...[text shortened]... eone got a tougher sentence for killing a police officer than for murdering my 7 year old son.
    I think there is a case for self defense if the police raid a house, otherwise i agree with the policy. Its not that police are sacred, more like what Mrs May said, attacking them is attacking society - you might need them next time. Also I think the law is being changed so police killers get the same as child killers, they can already get life with no parol.
  4. 16 May '13 12:31
    So attacking the police is like attacking society?

    You advocate no such thing because those that attack society are not treated as harshly. Instead, you are elevating the police above society.

    Whatever.
  5. 16 May '13 12:35 / 1 edit
    whatever ?? u just posted if you want to have a go at the sun article be my guest, but don't shoot the messenger!
  6. 16 May '13 22:39 / 1 edit
    There is something a bit big brotherish about this law, but i'd feel a bit of an anarchist disagreeing with it...