[Closed] Harry Roberts released

But this is just a pointless thoguh experiement. Here is another one:

Imagine for a minute that it is incontrivertially proved that believing in chocaolate coated flying fairies will save lives, is it better to nbelieve in god or not?

well the answer is that it is better to belive in the chocolate denizens, but the facts are that it is bollocks. Similarly there is no evidence that the death penalty saves any lives. So just becasue some silly thought experiment proves something has no actual bearing on real life.

EDIT - beaten to it by the critical thinkers..

The death penalty is not the same dilemma, the harm has already happened, there has been a death, the dilemma is what to do with the person that did the harm that will satisfy the competing needs of justice to be seen to be done from the perspective of the victims family, society in general to be kept from harm, and a suitable punishment handed down to the perpetrator.

Where is that lot does the trolley problem fit in?

Basically deciding whether someone should die to prevent a greater future harm to society.

Just to be clear,

Will you be getting a shorter jail term if you wait and do the copper when they are at home having their dinner?

[i]"wrongly"[/i] deciding whether someone should die [i]"based on the innacurate damaging and unproven assumption that killing them will"[/i] prevent a greater future harm to society.

FTFY the quoted italics are mine.

mogrim - Member

Basically deciding whether someone should die to prevent a greater future harm to society.

[i]Basically deciding whether someone should die to prevent a greater future harm to society[/i]

pre-cognitive crime thought? 😯

You not seriously trying to argue that "he may do something really nasty in the future, so let's take no chances and do him in now?" are you?

That's not what, thankfully, even something as revolting as the death penalty was intended for.

nickc - Member
Basically deciding whether someone should die to prevent a greater future harm to society

pre-cognitive crime thought?

That's not what, thankfully, even something as revolting as the death penalty was intended for

Just have a look at Iraq for evidence of how lovely the world would be if we started pre-emptive punishment! 😆

If it's wrong to put to death a murderer is it also wrong to lock up a kidnapper?

Ah, an eye for an eye eh mudshark? Of course not, it's patently ridiculous.

If attacks on police are prosecuted more heavily, should attacks by police also be prosecuted more heavily?

Eg [url] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-30009568 [/url]

Or fine thieves? Do the reason not to kill murderers is not because killing people is wrong.

Maybe this is why we used to send bad people to Australia in the 1800s, saved this sort of paradox.

Again, ridiculous.

No, an argument given here is that we mustn't kill people as a punishment as we say killing people is wrong. There are other, correct, reasons for this.

Killing people is wrong, so if you kill someone you are punished.

If killing people is wrong, and the punishment is killing, then the punishment is also wrong. Especially as the state is supposed to set an example, and we're supposed to be civilised.

Plus the whole 'mistakes are made' thing.

But all that's been covered, so what is your point?

If locking people up is wrong then punishing people by locking them up is also wrong. Just logic that is all.

😆

If killing people is wrong, and the punishment is killing, then the punishment is also wrong. Especially as the state is supposed to set an example, and we're supposed to be civilised.

That's an awful lot of supposition 🙂

And I [i]think[/i] we all agreed that killing [i]innocent[/i] people is wrong, whether killing guilty people is wrong is a different kettle of fish. The fact that in a lot of cases it's impossible to be 100% certain of guilt is a very powerful reason to be against the death penalty.

If locking people up is wrong then punishing people by locking them up is also wrong. Just logic that is all.

You're missing the word "innocent" from that... as I'm sure you're well aware 🙂

It always amazes me in these scenarios that we have whole systems of dedicated and skilled professionals in place to assess this kind of thing, but people seem to think they know better based on a quick skim through an article in the Daily Mail.

It shouldn't surprise you really grum. If you look at something like drugs policy over the years, its exactly the same. Every expert asserts that the whole approach to the law, enforcement etc needs to be completely reappraised and reformed, as it is completely ineffectual.

But no government will even contemplate a realistic, effective approach to it in case the Daily Mail has a hissy fit! And we can't have that now, can we?

mogrim - Member
That's an awful lot of supposition

Sure is!

Therefore killing certain guilty people may not be wrong?

No. It's definitely not not wrong.

For other reasons?

[img] [/img]

If you murder a police[s]man[/s] officer it should mean LIFE imprisonment

Same goes for police officers who [b][i]unlawfully kill[/b][/i] civilians IMHO. Several high-profile cases in recent years where the police have exercised bad judgement in the situation and afterwards where a civilian has lost their life due to police action. I would also mandate a life sentance on any police officer or member of the establishment who is complicit in covering up police involvement in the death of a member of the public.

Same goes for police officers who unlawfully kill civilians IMHO.

Seriously?

So an armed police officer makes a mistake, in a very stressful situation and you would lock him up for life?

Harry Roberts shot three (two) unarmed men because he didn't want to do a stretch inside.

He said that himself.

I'm not going to argue the whys and nots but he should never be released until he is vertical.

hora - Member
Harry Roberts shot three (two) unarmed men because he didn't want to do a stretch inside.

He said that himself.

I'm not going to argue the whys and nots but he should never be released until he is vertical.

Oops 😆

Personally I feel he should have got life without any chance of Parole - not just because the people he killed were coppers, but to protect society from someone who is clearly mental.

So an armed police officer makes a mistake,

Why armed?

Anyone could shove over an innocent newspaper seller and it could end in his death, for instance.

Is it OK coz he's Plod; or should he be put against the wall with the bank robbers and shot?

Seriously?
So an armed police officer makes a mistake, in a very stressful situation and you would lock him up for life?

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved does not include the use of firearms on either side. Most are somewhat unexplained deaths in custody or when under restraint. There are far more deaths of members of the public when in custody of the police than police officers killed in the pursuance of duties. Here for clarity I'm not talking about armed civilians being disarmed or contained - I'm talking about unarmed people losing their lives where they shouldn't be at risk of death.

Where firearms are used, the training and the directions given should prevent such a mistake. It should be a controlled situation. We shouldn't be shooting people carrying chair legs for instance... Besides, armed officers make very few mistakes historically.

IIRC there has not been one successful prosecution of a copper for death in custody.

I dont think it is comparable but that is shcocking

There is one on video where you can even see them beating [ restraining if you prefer] him whilst he says he cannot breathe. They then walk around him whilst he is dying.

If "full life" sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved does not include the use of firearms on either side. Most are somewhat unexplained deaths in custody or when under restraint.

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/deaths-in-police-custody
http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/bame-deaths-in-police-custody

There have been some truly shocking deaths in police custody, that have never resulted in prosecution. Not all coppers are bad but some are just thugs in uniform.

IIRC there has not been one successful prosecution of a copper for death in custody.

Is that due to charges not being brought or because the jury found in favour ?

I have a few friends who are police officers and I know a fairly senior officer too. None seem to take the abuse of their position by their fellow officers too well... All have said at differing times that they feel their positive impact and hard work become discredited as a result.

I'm not here on this thread to bash the police, but I do think they need to be whiter than white. This isn't the case at the moment.

Is that due to charges not being brought or because the jury found in favour ?

Look at the membership of the IPCC. That may tell you something...

If "full life" sentences were mandatory and it made people think twice about pulling a gun, or a knife, or whatever, on a copper, then it would be worth it.

Do you really think someone would make that calculation? That it would be worth doing 48 years in prison but not whole-life? I find that unlikely.

@cheekyboy - mix of the two

Bear in mind these have been recorded as an unlawful killing, they happened entirely in the care of the police and no one gets prosecuted . Its hard to reconcile all of this Every time

http://www.inquest.org.uk/statistics/unlawful-killing-verdicts-and-prosecutions

I am not anti police or on a witch hunt here.
The overwhelming majority do a grand job very well to the benefit us all.
they also never get "done" when it goes , terribly, wrong

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved

Unless you're talking about the RMP then police are civilians as well.

Just a pet hate of mine, only [u]military[/u] personnel are non-civilian.

Most deaths of civilians where the police are involved
Unless you're talking about the RMP then police are civilians as well.
Just a pet hate of mine, only military personnel are non-civilian.

I think the meaning as used in this thread is likely to be clearly understood. Police are not normal members of the public. They have additional powers and protection enshrined in law.

But not military law. Police are not paramilitary (in this country) so are civilians in every sense of the word.

As I said, pet hate. Pedantic yes.

it's pedantic, unnecessary to the thread and not even necessarily right:

Definition of civilian in English:
NOUN

1A person not in the armed services or the police force:
terrorists and soldiers have killed tens of thousands of civilians

I think that it is more of a cruel punishment to kick him out of his free board and lodgings where he has spent the vast majority of his life with no experience of working for a living into the care in the community.

Konabunny, I can honestly say that definition is a first for me and not correct. The internationally accepted legal definition of a civilian is laid out in Article 50 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention as summarised here:

https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter1_rule5