Ex Met Commisioner wants Capital punishment for Cop Killers

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#1
Lord Stevens, a former Commisioner of the Met has called for the introduction of Capital Punishment for the killers of Police Officers. I have several doubts about this. Whilst I ahve no moral objection to Capital punishment for murders, rapists, kiddy fiddlers drug pushers etc I do recognise that there are prctical considerations - such as convicting the wrong person....

The issue that Milord raises is a slightly different one. Should killers of Police Officers be singled out for Capital punishment?

The arguament for is: Police officers put them selves in harms way on societies behalf they are therefore deserving of the greater protection that would come from having the death penalty hanging over anyone who murdered them.

There are 2 problems with that:

1. Who do you include for special protection? Soldiers, Paramendics, firemen, security guards, members of the public assisting police officers, members of the public making 'citizens' arrests....

2. If you were an un-armed Police officer would you like to face a (possibly armed) killer who faces the death penalty if you nick him/her. He/she has got nothing to lose by adding you to thier tally. You could arm the Police, but that would make matey even more likely to shoot.

Discuss
 
#2
Murder is murder - police or not. Death row for approx 5 years to allow any new evidence to present itself and then if none is forthcoming off they bl**dy well go.

5 years should be enough for the 'what if it wasn't them?' brigade and is still cheaper than a life sentence (which is prob only about 15 to 20 years max now anyway).
 
#4
"You might convict the wrong person!!11111"

The last time capital punishment was used, there was no such thing as DNA profiling and fingerprints were in its infancy. Nowadays, with advanced fingerprint databases and DNA profiling we can conclusively prove someone's guilt beyond doubt. After all, DNA can't lie.

Thus, the chances of catching and hanging the wrong person is infinately lower than it was during 50/60s.

If police officers are going to get some "special immunity" because they're doing a dificult job...would soldiers get the same benefits -- considering their job is about 50,000 times harder and more dangerous than fat bastard donut eating PC Plod.

IMO, killers of ANY human being should face capital punishment. Why should people face death for killing a copper, yet only face 10 years in prision for killing a taxi driver or a little girl (for example)?
 
#5
What would Manchester Rogue (are they not all?), do in case where there was ample circumstantial evidence but no forensic evidence was found? Clearly a violent death but no body? Confession or no confession?
This call was to be predicted - it always come up. The Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Austin 7 etc argument will always be trotted out - maybe with some justification. What we do need is more confidence in the current system. Detection, investigation, prosecution, sentence. Life to be life. Tougher threshold for judicial review and release on licence. (Blind eye to what happens to the guy in the prison would be nice too)
 
#6
Not a fan of capital punishment, as IMHO it is not justice but revenge, it will not bring back the people that are killed and it doesn't act as a deterent in any case. eg America.

I agree with redcap, in case with grey areas, then the conviction could be wrong and then that becomes murder, and all the family of the convict gets is a sorry!! :?

Life should mean life, I want them to be doing some work as well. If we have to pay for their upkeep (surly that is just food and water, why are we paying for their TV's :evil: :evil: ) then they should do work, eg mailbags etc.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#7
He might as well have suggested putting them on the moon for all the good it will do. For Capital Punishment to be reintroduced the UK would need to leave the EU as European law takes precedence over national law, and the MPs would actually have to vote for it. The last time it was voted on there was a large majority against-despite overwhelming public support. So whatever your own views.....it ain't ever going to happen.

(mind you it would be one fcuk of a vote winner "We'll sack the EU and bring back hanging")
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#8
I believe that a death sentence does act as a deterrent and in a poll, 100% of all executed murderers never reoffended. Compare that to the average 2 people a month killed by early release prisoners. If you deliberately and unlawfully take a life especially if there is a sadistic or sexual motive, a long drop and a short rope should await. The vast majority of people want the reintroduction of the death penalty, but once more our masters do not listen to the people.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#10
uaintseenme said:
Not a fan of capital punishment, as IMHO it is not justice but revenge, it will not bring back the people that are killed and it doesn't act as a deterent in any case. eg America.
I find that I concur with this concept concerning capital punishment, at least in public. The concept of revenge killing execution when in the psyche of the general public can cause no good. If executions are to take place they should be done according to international law, with a court case of sorts, and probably without anyone ever knowing (read UNSC). Before anyone critisises me for this I am sure this occurs often all over the world. Many serious 'criminals' are far too smart to present authorities with viable evidence against themselves, yet have many casualties against their name. These people take down many more people than a junkie who robs a convenience store in the US, yet one gets death row, the other a private Yacht in the Carribean. I think I make my point.

On a more frivolous note, does the fact that this ex-Metropolitan Commisioner has called for Capital punishment mean it will only happen in London :wink:
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#11
Do you believe the early release of murderers, free to kill again is not a miscarriage of justice? Do you believe the Sutcliffes and Huntleys of this world deserve to live? I would have a sentencing commission made up exclusively from relatives of murder victims. An independent evidence review commision could be used to impartially investigate the evidence in capital cases and either confirm or commute the sentence to a whole life tariff. A reasonable period would be set aside for them to deal with this issue. The human rights of the victims of crime, must take priority over those of the perpetrators.
 
#12
Herrenbloke said:
Do you believe the early release of murderers, free to kill again is not a miscarriage of justice?
You are mixing up two issues... By all the means end early release for murderers... But that's a separate issue to capital punishment... (you always do this Herrenbloke - slight mixing of issues!! - you are the master of spin!)

And you still haven't answered my point about miscarriages of justice?

Tricam
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#13
When capital punishment was abolished (Against the wishes of the people I may add) It was conditional that life would mean life. I am not mixing the issues but raising the point that far more people have been killed by early released murderers than have been wrongly executed. The primary role of the criminal justice system is just that .... justice, today there is none. Sentencing should be about 3 things.. Deterence (Preventing murder in the first place) Punishment (Which should act as a deterrent) and finally rehablitation where appropriate. In murder cases there should be no early release and therefore no need for rehabilitation. If you deliberately take a life, except in exceptional circumstances, you should be expected to pay the ultimate price. If you take away the ultimate human right, the right to life, then why should society be merciful? Murder is no longer seen as the ultimate crime, excuses are constantly made by the hand wringers of the world. People who steal are getting harsher sentences than those who kill. The judiciary is partially responsibe for the increase in the murder rate. A death sentence would deter, especially those who think they are being brave by carrying a knife.
 
#14
Herrenbloke said:
When capital punishment was abolished (Against the wishes of the people I may add) It was conditional that life would mean life. I am not mixing the issues but raising the point that far more people have been killed by early released murderers than have been wrongly executed. The primary role of the criminal justice system is just that .... justice, today there is none. Sentencing should be about 3 things.. Deterence (Preventing murder in the first place) Punishment (Which should act as a deterrent) and finally rehablitation where appropriate. In murder cases there should be no early release and therefore no need for rehabilitation. If you deliberately take a life, except in exceptional circumstances, you should be expected to pay the ultimate price. If you take away the ultimate human right, the right to life, then why should society be merciful? Murder is no longer seen as the ultimate crime, excuses are constantly made by the hand wringers of the world. People who steal are getting harsher sentences than those who kill. The judiciary is partially responsibe for the increase in the murder rate. A death sentence would deter, especially those who think they are being brave by carrying a knife.
Excellent Post,for what it is worth I agree entirely
 
#15
OldRedCap said:
What would Manchester Rogue (are they not all?), do in case where there was ample circumstantial evidence but no forensic evidence was found? Clearly a violent death but no body? Confession or no confession?
This call was to be predicted - it always come up. The Guildford 4, Birmingham 6, Austin 7 etc argument will always be trotted out - maybe with some justification. What we do need is more confidence in the current system. Detection, investigation, prosecution, sentence. Life to be life. Tougher threshold for judicial review and release on licence. (Blind eye to what happens to the guy in the prison would be nice too)
If no forensic evidence is found then you have yourself a wee problem.

I personally believe that if someone is a serial murderer (for example) then they should be hung. If someone has commited several murders, then there is going to be forensic evidence.

I've watched CSI! I know my forensics!!!



( :lol: )
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#16
The forensic argument runs both ways, double jeapordy is at least being rolled back thanks to forensics. Also, certain individuals involved in famous "Miscarriages" have been put firmly back in the frame thanks to new forensic technology. Unfortunately Libel laws prevent me from naming those in question. But they know their name!
 
#17
This argument surfaces like clockwork whenever a police officer is shot. Is the fact that she is a family woman cut off in her prime allowing the media to cloud a few judgements?

The public has a right to expect protection from the police. So the police, like us soldiers are placed in the way of danger. There is a greater statistical likelihood that her duties will harm her than many other occupations. This death, whilst tragic, is that of a professional officer doing her duty. No doubt the police understand this distinction, as increasingly their job, like ours is a vocation.

I am surprised that a military forum is failing to grasp the simple fact that risk is inherent in her (and our) job design. Why should the impulsive and evil decision to shoot her warrant the death tariff, whilst the equally evil but premeditated murder of a civilian not do so? The reason is that this country thankfully abandoned the death penalty a while ago and has a more humane society as a result. By all means throw away the key, but the return of the death penalty would devalue society. This tragic death is not the incident that proves the rule.
 
#18
State sanctioned execution is not the way to go for one simple reaeon. If the state gets it wrong, even one time out of a thousand, then the state is no better than the criminal.

Far better would be a "life means life" agenda where any killer is jailed for the rest of their natural lives. As the concept of "rest of their natural lives" does not include any chance or point of rehabilitation, there would be no need for any of the PC liberal wishy washy farting around with the way that they are treated. No visits, no mod cons, no TV, no therapists, no contact with the outside world, just good old fashioned hard labour and hardships until the day they die (of natural causes).

This way the killer is off the streets for good and if a miscarriage was discovered at a later date, at least the state doesn't have the death of an innocent person on their hands and all can be resolved with a handsome payout (simplistic I know but still better than being pardoned when you are in a coffin).

I would personally get more of a sense of justice knowing that the criminal was living a waking hell for the rest of their lives than from the short lived satisfaction gained by dangling them at the end of a rope.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#19
Oh I don't know Aunty Stella, the thought of them dangling on a rope gives me a sense of satisfaction! In fact I volunteer... always had a soft spot for Pierrepoint!
 
#20
The case of Derek Bentley is perhaps not a good example to use in this argument. Bentley was sentenced correctly according to the law at the time. The furore came about because of the facts that Chris Craig, who fired the fatal shot, was too young to be hanged, that Bentley suffered from mild learning difficulties, and the controversy of Bentley's 'let him have it, Chris' statement - did he mean shoot or did he mean hand over the weapon?

The concept of the death sentence for some murders and not for others is well established. There are plenty of cases where, when capital punishment was available, convicted murderers were not executed. Indeed, as well as manslaughter there was a charge available of non-capital murder, and this was often seen in trials of the 1950s and early 60s. Had the Bentley case not involved the murder of a police officer, he would probably have been sentenced to prison on account of his intellectual handicap.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads