PC Andrew Harper

[ollie989898]

The problem you will have is that the prison service is basically at capacity and no government intends to spend the necessary money on it. I'm entirely open to suggestions but it's badly funded and rehabilitates no one.

 

[Farma Parma]

If you were her, would you come back?

Already tried and convicted by public opinion, there's no way she would get a fair trial

am i right in thinking if she or any other american did this same thing in this country again are they simply allowed to get away with it surely thats not right diplomatic immunity or not?
Its like committing murder but you cant be charged ? The mind baffles

 

[TechWise]

am i right in thinking if she or any other american did this same thing in this country again are they simply allowed to get away with it surely thats not right diplomatic immunity or not?
Its like committing murder but you cant be charged ? The mind baffles

It's not "any American", it's limited to diplomats and related roles which are agreed in advance. In this case, the list of people that the immunity was extended to would be agreed at the time the US took on the airbase. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card because the person's home nation can revoke their immunity making it meaningless. If it were a case of blatant murder, it's highly likely the US would have waived her immunity. No American politician is going to want to be seen as harbouring a murderer or rapist. As it stands, it is politically insignificant in the US, so they can get away with saying they're protecting one of their own from going to prison in a foreign country for what was probably a tragic accident. It's also worth noting that we don't always help out the US in similar circumstances. We routinely refuse to extradite wanted terrorists for fear that big bad Uncle Sam might sentence them to death. If you were an American, would you be rushing to hand over one of your own to a country wouldn't do the same for you?

Soering v United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Diplomatic immunity is obviously controversial and was never really intended to apply in a situation like this. The general idea is to prevent a less scrupolous country from arbitrarily arresting foreign diplomats for leverage. You wouldn't want to set up an embassy in somewhere like Iran to have them arresting your diplomats all the time for trumped up charges of "blasphemy", "treason" or "corruption" just so they could be bartered as leverage. Likewise, you wouldn't want them intimidating or arresting your ambassador's wife/husband to try and exert influence.

 

[teslacoils]

The problem you will have is that the prison service is basically at capacity and no government intends to spend the necessary money on it. I'm entirely open to suggestions but it's badly funded and rehabilitates no one.

Either they need to do a better job in prison to get folk out of their criminal ways.....or they need to start chopping ears off / put them in the stocks. Another option would be decriminalisation of some drug offences.

 

[Farma Parma]

It's not "any American", it's limited to diplomats and related roles which are agreed in advance. In this case, the list of people that the immunity was extended to would be agreed at the time the US took on the airbase. It's not a get-out-of-jail-free card because the person's home nation can revoke their immunity making it meaningless. If it were a case of blatant murder, it's highly likely the US would have waived her immunity. No American politician is going to want to be seen as harbouring a murderer or rapist. As it stands, it is politically insignificant in the US, so they can get away with saying they're protecting one of their own from going to prison in a foreign country for what was probably a tragic accident. It's also worth noting that we don't always help out the US in similar circumstances. We routinely refuse to extradite wanted terrorists for fear that big bad Uncle Sam might sentence them to death. If you were an American, would you be rushing to hand over one of your own to a country wouldn't do the same for you?

Soering v United Kingdom - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Diplomatic immunity is obviously controversial and was never really intended to apply in a situation like this. The general idea is to prevent a less scrupolous country from arbitrarily arresting foreign diplomats for leverage. You wouldn't want to set up an embassy in somewhere like Iran to have them arresting your diplomats all the time for trumped up charges of "blasphemy", "treason" or "corruption" just so they could be bartered as leverage. Likewise, you wouldn't want them intimidating or arresting your ambassador's wife/husband to try and exert influence.

well eitherway in this instance the lady in Q did wrong as far as we all know & should be held too account somewhere ?? or payup a large sum of money to the family thats left
i dunno what the right course of action is here but that lad & he family cant just be brushed too one side it doesnt sit right with most of the population that surely

 

[Farma Parma]

Dont get me started on them folks who ended PC Harpers life, they think there above the laws most decent folks abey too in this country end of.

 

[ollie989898]

Either they need to do a better job in prison to get folk out of their criminal ways.....or they need to start chopping ears off / put them in the stocks. Another option would be decriminalisation of some drug offences.

Many of these drug offences are effectively decriminalised anyway.

 

[Farma Parma]

Either they need to do a better job in prison to get folk out of their criminal ways.....or they need to start chopping ears off / put them in the stocks. Another option would be decriminalisation of some drug offences.

I know a lad who is a warden/guard at a fairly major prison & some of the tales..... unreal what go's on in these places it would really shock a lot of folks

 

[Still Farming]

The newspaper articles today state legal aid for accused bill over £750,000.00 ???

 

[MrNoo]

Yup and sentence remains the same, utter bloody joke. This country is fecked pure and simple if you can murder a policeman and be out after 4-5 yrs, you couldnt make it up

 

[Ffermer Bach]

my old manager at work told me about his sons school, apparently pupils would just get up in class, and walk into another class, sit down and interrupt the teaching, when the teacher tried to do anything, they would say " I can do what I want, you can't do anything to me". It is producing this type of scrote, that will be and is the undoing of our society. I believe we need to bring back corporal and capital punishment, and maybe village stocks too.

 

[TechWise]

I haven't read today's judgement in full, but the BBC report notes:

The judges said the attorney general's argument, that the sentences of Bowers and Cole were unduly lenient because the judge did not "depart" from the sentencing guidelines, was "to say the least, an unusual submission".

That last bit just seems a totally unnecessary kick in the teeth to me, a way of saying "how dare the common people question the judiciary". Guidelines are just that - guidance. I see no reason why if a crime is particularly shocking that a judge cannot depart from the general guidance and impose the maximum sentence prescribed in law if it's in the public interest to do so.

I feel every sympathy for Mrs Harper, who said:

"I continue to feel let down by our justice system and the inadequate laws that we have in place," she said.

I don't actually think the laws themselves are inadequate at all. Both statute and common law provide plenty of scope for prosecuting criminals and imposing tough sentences. The problem is really with the "Sentencing Guidelines" which roughly translate as a "list of excuses to shorten the sentences prescribed by law to reduce the prison population". Take for example the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf Fourth line of Page 3 it says that the maximum sentence is life in prison. You only have to look to the very next line and it's already saying only the range of 1-24 years should be used. Turn to Page 5 and even that range has been reduced again, where even in the worst category the judge should in fact start at only 18 years.

 

[betweenthelines]

It's manslaughter not murder

Irrespective of the details, they did not set out with the intention to kill anyone.

Having very heavy sentences can actually result in more crimes being committed.

If for example, a robber runs someone down when fleeing a crime scene, he knows that as that is manslaughter (no intention to kill) he will get a shorter than for murder. However, if the sentence for manslaughter is a full life term, he knows he has nothing to lose and may kill more people.

 

[tepapa]

my old manager at work told me about his sons school, apparently pupils would just get up in class, and walk into another class, sit down and interrupt the teaching, when the teacher tried to do anything, they would say " I can do what I want, you can't do anything to me". It is producing this type of scrote, that will be and is the undoing of our society. I believe we need to bring back corporal and capital punishment, and maybe village stocks too.

I suppose society was built using corporal and capital punishment until the do-gooders decided it wasn't pc. The same way the landscape was built by agriculture until the environmentalists decided they knew best.

 

[TechWise]

It's manslaughter not murder

Irrespective of the details, they did not set out with the intention to kill anyone.

Having very heavy sentences can actually result in more crimes being committed.

If for example, a robber runs someone down when fleeing a crime scene, he knows that as that is manslaughter (no intention to kill) he will get a shorter than for murder. However, if the sentence for manslaughter is a full life term, he knows he has nothing to lose and may kill more people.

I agree with what you're saying but if the defendants are standing laughing in the courtroom I see no reason to deviate from the maximum sentence. If the robber in your scenerio stops the car when he realises what he's done and shows remorse after the event then by all means reduce the sentence.

 

[Ffermer Bach]

It's manslaughter not murder

Irrespective of the details, they did not set out with the intention to kill anyone.

Having very heavy sentences can actually result in more crimes being committed.

If for example, a robber runs someone down when fleeing a crime scene, he knows that as that is manslaughter (no intention to kill) he will get a shorter than for murder. However, if the sentence for manslaughter is a full life term, he knows he has nothing to lose and may kill more people.

unless manslaughter is life in prison, murder is hanging!

 

[Grassman]

I haven't read today's judgement in full, but the BBC report notes:


That last bit just seems a totally unnecessary kick in the teeth to me, a way of saying "how dare the common people question the judiciary". Guidelines are just that - guidance. I see no reason why if a crime is particularly shocking that a judge cannot depart from the general guidance and impose the maximum sentence prescribed in law if it's in the public interest to do so.

I feel every sympathy for Mrs Harper, who said:


I don't actually think the laws themselves are inadequate at all. Both statute and common law provide plenty of scope for prosecuting criminals and imposing tough sentences. The problem is really with the "Sentencing Guidelines" which roughly translate as a "list of excuses to shorten the sentences prescribed by law to reduce the prison population". Take for example the sentencing guidelines for manslaughter here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Manslaughter-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf Fourth line of Page 3 it says that the maximum sentence is life in prison. You only have to look to the very next line and it's already saying only the range of 1-24 years should be used. Turn to Page 5 and even that range has been reduced again, where even in the worst category the judge should in fact start at only 18 years.

A much harder time in prison may be the way forward. Live in cheap, tented compounds. If they want heating they generate it themselves on great big hamster wheels. 12 hours hard work all day every day. Very basic food.
Guard towers with marksmen. But you reduce sentences significantly. Might put off a lot from taking the risk of being caught.

 

[Still Farming]

 

[Lofty1984]

Well looks like Andrew Harper’s widow has fought for mandatory life sentences for anyone guilty of killing a serving emergency worker https://apple.news/AtoR8ylOgTFOpzkanb8XtJg

 

[nosmokenopoke]

my old manager at work told me about his sons school, apparently pupils would just get up in class, and walk into another class, sit down and interrupt the teaching, when the teacher tried to do anything, they would say " I can do what I want, you can't do anything to me". It is producing this type of scrote, that will be and is the undoing of our society. I believe we need to bring back corporal and capital punishment, and maybe village stocks too.

Think they should bring back the Kane in school! The parents who disagree... need ten rounds of it first. Majority of People under 20 have zero respect for anything,imagine what happens when they breed