Jump to content

PC Andrew Harper


Blackpowder
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

The purpose of the appeal will be to gain money for the lawyers.  If you have no visible assets, then the lawyer gets legal aid and the appellant has no cost.  If you already have a sentence, they are rarely increased on appeal, but occasionally decreased.  In this instance, reading the judges sentencing statement, it seems that he handed out sentences that were near maximum that was allowable within the guidelines, so an increase seems relatively unlikely.  Summary;

  • Appellants have some chance of a reduction, little chance of an increase
  • Lawyers have a dead cert of a good fee
  • Taxpayer picks up all costs

It is called British Justice.

Also Appeal Court judges do not like criticizing their lesser fellows who are often from the same background and social habits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, wymberley said:

This whole thing is a national disgrace of the first water. The fact that back in the day we had a hangman on standby reflects that capital punishment is not actually a deterrent. What it does do is to ensure that a no argument killer(s) will not repeat their crime. That'll do for me.

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit I am addicted to programmes like Police Interceptors, Traffic Cops and more recently that which deals with assaults on police officers.This despite my wife wanting to ban me from watching these, as the paltry sentences handed down sends my blood pressure through the roof. The programme about assaults on officers is particularly galling as the sentences are ridiculously lenient. The programme screened yesterday was particularly bad for the blood pressure. Following a routine traffic stop (no insurance) the driver attacked the officer with a machete, inflicting serious injury. The offender was charged with, amongst other things, attempted murder, of which he was found not guilty. How the devil is this possible? If you beat someone around the head with a machete, how can anyone say you do not intend to kill them? Admittedly, he was banged up for 16 years. Other assaults featured, including punching/kicking and biting officers resulted in ridiculously paltry fines, community service and victims surcharge. Most police officers laugh when you mention community service. I am told that most offenders simply do not bother to turn up and if they do, they spend most of the day smoking and drinking tea. If you strike a key worker in the execution of their duty, this should mean prison time - no ifs or buts! When will the judiciary actually start to support the police? An acquaintance of mine who was a magistrate (no longer) had a very liberal attitude until he was the victim of a street robbery. At this point he was all about taking a cricket bat to the feral gangs roaming the streets with robbery in mind! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As semi auto said it took a personal robbery to wake up a retired magistrate to the everyday life the citizens of the country endure. The judiciary should be from ordinary folk who know what real life problems occur and the aftermath of these deeds Many a time sentences do not reflect the victims mental and physical trauma and are mostly a liberal attitude towards the offender .If sharia law was in this country (i hope it never does) there would be more executions for murder hands chopped off for theft you would know who the crims were rant over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that the widow of PC Harper believes that those who cause the death of "emergency workers" should receive longer sentences than those that might cause the death of a member of the public who "does the right thing". So then why is the family of man also not entitled to see his killers receive longer sentences. Sir Robert Peel who founded Britain's police service saw no difference between the two saying that the police are the public and the public are the police. Yes. PC Harper's killers should be given much longer sentences but in giving such sentences to the killers of "emergency workers" should not the same be done across the board to ALL who kill members of the public who "does the right thing"?

https://news.sky.com/story/teenagers-jailed-for-life-after-trying-to-decapitate-man-as-they-hacked-at-him-more-than-100-times-with-samurai-sword-12061980

 

Edited by enfieldspares
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, enfieldspares said:

should not the same be done across the board to ALL who are killed?

I can see both sides on this question.

People get killed for a variety of reasons - and can end up as manslaughter or murder.  In some instances, manslaughter may be entirely unintended - such as caused by inattention - but at the other end of the scale, manslaughter may be used in preference to murder where there is strong reason to believe that pre-meditation was involved (i.e. murder), but it would be hard to prove that 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Where there is an incident which results in the emergency services getting involved - it may improve the outcome if the perpetrators see this as the change to a greater sentence.

Personally I agree with what you are saying and I would like to see very tough sentences (e.g. life meaning life) where people are certainly  'deliberately killed' - even if it is not thought to be wise to use a murder charge due to concerns over the burden of proof.  However I have reservations at the other end of the scale where the killing may have been much more like 'accidental'.

I also believe that killing people who are legitimately carrying out their job should have the confidence that severe punishment awaits those who threaten their lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

Take a life, lose your life  should be the mantra.

It is nowhere near that simple;

  1. I hear an intruder in my house in the night, and I investigate armed with a stick.  The intruder makes a sudden movement I interpret as threatening, hit him - and he dies as a result.  Should I suffer the death penalty - or is it reasonable self defence?
  2. I'm driving, in town, and someone steps off the pavement - my car hits them and they are killed.  Death penalty - or accident?
  3. My car skids on some spilled diesel - and someone is killed.  Death penalty - or accident?
  4. Someone has a long drawn out terminal illness - and begs their carer to help them 'end things' which they do.  It is reported - and the carer is accused of supplying/administering the excess sleeping pills/pain medication responsible.  Should they suffer the death penalty?

Just some examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is nowhere near that simple;

  1. I hear an intruder in my house in the night, and I investigate armed with a stick.  The intruder makes a sudden movement I interpret as threatening, hit him - and he dies as a result.  Should I suffer the death penalty - or is it reasonable self defence

If I catch an intruder in my house he will not have to make a sudden movement before I hit him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

No doubt there will be plenty who will say poverty, and societal deficiencies  played the larger part in this horrific murder. :no:
Its a familiar excuse , PC Harpers killers had 'learning disabilities' and an 'underprivileged' upbringing, causing them to be violent criminals with no regard for human life.

 

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is nowhere near that simple;

  1. I hear an intruder in my house in the night, and I investigate armed with a stick.  The intruder makes a sudden movement I interpret as threatening, hit him - and he dies as a result.  Should I suffer the death penalty - or is it reasonable self defence? Of course its self defence, you didnt mean to kill them, what would you think their intentions are at that hour, do you want to check with them first ?
  2. I'm driving, in town, and someone steps off the pavement - my car hits them and they are killed.  Death penalty - or accident? Accident, they are on the road, death was completely unintentional.
  3. My car skids on some spilled diesel - and someone is killed.  Death penalty - or accident? Really ?
  4. Someone has a long drawn out terminal illness - and begs their carer to help them 'end things' which they do.  It is reported - and the carer is accused of supplying/administering the excess sleeping pills/pain medication responsible.  Should they suffer the death penalty? Doctors and carers do this ALL the time, its widely accepted in end of life situations.
    The Liverpool 'care' pathway is a classic example , still used in hospitals.

Just some examples.

Those are really bad examples John !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is nowhere near that simple;

  1. I hear an intruder in my house in the night, and I investigate armed with a stick.  The intruder makes a sudden movement I interpret as threatening, hit him - and he dies as a result.  Should I suffer the death penalty - or is it reasonable self defence?
  2. I'm driving, in town, and someone steps off the pavement - my car hits them and they are killed.  Death penalty - or accident?
  3. My car skids on some spilled diesel - and someone is killed.  Death penalty - or accident?
  4. Someone has a long drawn out terminal illness - and begs their carer to help them 'end things' which they do.  It is reported - and the carer is accused of supplying/administering the excess sleeping pills/pain medication responsible.  Should they suffer the death penalty?

Just some examples.

I id believe we where actually talking about criminal intent here. All of those incidents you mention are already covered by present law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Walker570 said:

I id believe we where actually talking about criminal intent here. All of those incidents you mention are already covered by present law.

It still presents considerable difficulties.  My understanding of the reason the killers weren't charged with murder, but faced the lesser charge of manslaughter was the difficulty in proving 'beyond reasonable doubt' they intended to kill.  There was evidence they set out to steal (in this case a quad bike) - but they claimed they had no intent to kill/injure.  I can see no real difference between manslaughter with criminal intent and murder - because if there is intent - then surely it is premeditated - and premeditated killing is murder.

As I said - I entirely agree there should be a much harsher punishment - but it is hard to set into a rigourous legal framework.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...