Death penality for police killers?!

[january_bug]

I have just seen on the news that the former Metropolitan Commissioner Lord Stevens has reconsidered his opinion on the death penalty and now says it should be reintroduced for those who kill police officers.

What are your views on this?!

[Oneeyedvic]

I keep re writing this answer as I am really tring to think about it.

I guess that once a person has commited a heinous crime, they are beyond redemption (for want of a better word).

It seems that there is a choice of either life (and meaning life) imprisonment or the death penalty.

So life imprisonment first: I guess the only advantage is that if a mistake happens and there is a travesty of justice, we can let them go - sort of no harm, no foul.

And this seems to be the crux of the matter - what happens if there is a mistake?

Is the life of one innocent mistake worth putting a lot of other people to death for.

I think (in an ideal world) I would support the death penalty so long as there were sufficent checks and balances and it could only be implemented for certain crimes (as an example I don't believe the murder of a spouse would make you elligible).

Unfortunately, I realise that this isn't a perfect world, and so I guess that I would currently be against the death penalty - maybe predominately (as I have said before) becasue the media is too powerful in this country and there is too much trial by media.

[libertie]

I for one would not want to see the dealth penalty reintroduced in this country for anyone.....what I would like to see though is sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crime and I think that life should be just that life!

[Drusilla]

Sorry, we all drifted off the point a bit, Jb, but it was an interesting post nevertheless. Many thanks.

[january_bug]

Drusilla - please don't feel you have to apoloigse! To be honest, it was more that I wanted us all to be able to debate the CONTENT of Lord Steven's sentiments, rather than whether or not he is a "prat", or a "rent-a-quote" person. I'm more than happy for the debate to meander around the point of capital punishment, respect for the police etc, I was just hoping to avoid personal snipes - both at each other and at the person whose comments prompted me to start this thread. There was enough personal sniping on this site at the weekend and I was hoping today might mark the start of a happier, maturer week! :-)

So - on such a happy note - let the debate roll on! :-)

[JudgeJ]

All this is completely academic. As Lord Stevens well knows (or should well know) even if all of the MPs, Cabinet Ministers and the Prime Minister wanted it and it was supported in a referendum by the entire population of the country, Capital Punishment cannot be reintroduced for any crime. Even if it were supported unanimously by both Houses of Parliament, it cannot be done.

This is because the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. On 20th May 1999 the then Home Secretary Jack Straw signed, on the UK’s behalf, protocol 6 of the Convention, which forbids the death penalty throughout the EC. (And, incidentally, seems by implication to forbid the UK from allowing the extradition of any person to a country where the death penalty exists).

This country is unable to introduce laws that are contrary to any of the articles and protocols in the convention unless it withdraws from the convention entirely. Despite what may have been suggested in the media, countries cannot “pick and mix” a selection of articles which suits them best. Withdrawal would not go down well with our European "partners". It would certainly stifle the European ambitions of politicians who see a lucrative career beckoning when they are eventually thrown out of domestic politics. It is thus unlikely to occur.

[january_bug]

So we shouldn't be allowed to debate it!?!

Well you obviously wanted to contribute, despite feeling the subject isn't worthy of a debate. So thank you for your views.

FYI - there are many users of AB who have a decent working knowledge of constitutional law and we KNOW it can't be changed, but it doesn't mean that we can't discuss it to see what other people's opinions are, even if the facts won't change.

[JudgeJ]

Oops! And there was I, thinking that AB was a knowledge exchange, not a debating society!

Serves me right, I suppose, for getting involved in what was clearly a debate and not a question.

[january_bug]

JudgeJ - If you read the tagline for AB, it actually says "... and discuss topics of interest". "News" has long been a forum for debate, if you read around you will see this. There are many users who enjoy debating news topics on this site, and they have not complained about this thread. You will also notice that we are not all morons and it might be polite not to imply that you think otherwise. If we want to find out about the news, we all know to look on the TV, in the newspapers, or at various sites on the internet, or to listen to the radio. Most people come to this section to debate items in the news. You're more than welcome to join in any debate, but if it's not your cup of tea, then I'm sure there are plenty of sites that will tickle your fancy a little better.

If you have a view on the subject of pros and cons of capital punishment for those who murder police officers, I would welcome them.

[JudgeJ]

If we’re talking about definitions, I’m obviously viewing a different version to you, january_bug. My version of AB describes it as follows:

“The AnswerBank is a community Question and Answer site where people ask genuine questions and receive answers from fellow members. Threads follow the traditional Question and Answer format and we reserve the right to remove any postings that stray away from this intended purpose. Recently added is The ChatterBank category, where members can chat about issues of general interest or continue a discussion initially started in an AnswerBank thread.”

Apart from the reference to Chatterbank, nowhere can I see anything like “…and discuss topics of interest”

However, it is obvious that users will not restrict themselves purely to Q and As and debate is bound to happen. I did not complain about the thread. Nor did I imply that anybody using AB was a moron. How on earth did you form any of those ideas? Further, it is not for me to object to anything that anybody wants to put on to AB, and nor have I. I don’t care a jot what goes on it.

All I said was that the responses to your posting were somewhat irrelevant in view of the current legislation. I did not intend it to stop further debate. I thought it was a useful addition to it. Even among the AB correspondents (whom I view, incidentally, with great respect and whose collective knowledge never ceases to amaze me) there may be some people who think these matters are for us to decide. The quicker it is accepted by the people of the UK that they are not in charge of their own affairs the better it might be (eventually) for all of us.

My view (for what it is worth) on the topic is that it is not worth having a view until and unless the current Human Rights legislation is repealed.

Sorry if I’ve offended you, but you are clearly very easily offended.

[Ward-Minter]

I think you know what my view is buggy so i won't bore you with a sermon on my liberal views.

Hang 'em as high as you can and let cop-killers rot.

An extra sad thing that has come from this is the fact that when the killers go to gaol they will be deemed as some some kind of hero by the other filth who frequent these establishments.

[january_bug]

W-M - I said that to Dom Tuk - he reckons that actually, cop killers are bottom of the prison hierarchy, just above paedos and rapists. I'm not so sure, but I'd like to think they'd be given a hard time.

JudgeJ - go to the AB home page and the read the blue line at the top of the window.

[Ward-Minter]

believe it or not JB the bottom of the pile in UK prisons are ex police. It is the only entry that AUTOMATICALLY gets a rule 43 segregation. Most kiddy fiddlers get it but its not god given.

[january_bug]

Fair point - I can see why ex-police officers would be at risk in prison!

[SAM80]

For those of you who seem to think that DNA evidence is a "3 letter answer" for reintroducing the death penalty, perhaps you'd like to consider the case of Sion Jenkins?

DNA evidence quite often proves nothing - for example that a person was at the scene of a crime, but nothing more. Whilst it may be used to suggest that a person has lied in court, there are many and varied reasons why a person might do that, and it does not mean they actually committed the crime they are accused of.

Personally, I believe there is no justification for the death sentence in civilised society - and that the use of DNA evidence does not completely eliminate the risk of miscarriages of justice.

[Oneeyedvic]

Would love to consider the case of Sion Jenkins, but since it is a current trial it is not permissable to speak of it.

I am assuming that you would be content to lock someone up for life with no chance of parole then?

[january_bug]

How on EARTH are you assuming that Vic!?!

I thought I was bad for reading stuff into people's posts, but SAM80 said nothing of the sort!!!!!!!!!

[SAM80]

Oneeyedvic: Yes - that's a perfectly sensible conclusion to draw. I stated that I disagree with the death penalty, therefore I must believe that incarceration with no possibility of parole is the only alternative...

Does anybody on here READ other people's posts; or do you only come on to be controversial?

As for not being "permissable" (sic) to speak of the Jenkins trial, unless you're on the jury it's perfectly OK. Trust me on that one.

[Oneeyedvic]

Okay, I apologise - so you don't think that life sentances are to mean life then - or am I reading to much there as well? The reason I suggested that (and please note the question mark at the end of my snetance) is because a lot of people who aren't pro death penalty are pro longer sentancing including a life snetance meaning a life sentance. Personally I didn't (and still don't) think it was a stupid conclusion.

Lets make this easy - What would you suggest for people who have committed foul and heinous crimes?

With regards Sion Jenkins, persoanlly i don't have access to the full court proceedings. I am unsure as to why you would mention this case with reference to the practicalities of DNA. I have never said that DNA is perfect - however it would have prevented a miscarriage of justice in the case of Timothy Evans which was being championed as a reason to not have the death penalty.

[Ward-Minter]

sambo it's not just the jury who are subject to subjudicy it is anyone involved in the case. That is all defence all prosecution, all police, all civilian staff near enough anyone so as we do not know what the oney eyed man does he may have a point.

Further I disagree about your negativities with DNA. It is the most successful breakthrough in criminal history. The Jenkins case is not based on DNA. It is merely based on her blood on him. If DNA had not been discovered the evidence would still be the same. If Mr Jenkins is innocent then thank god it was the poor childs blood because how could he account for somebody elses??? Therefore DNA in her blood can be seen as a positive thing.

Ofcourse his DNA is present, they shared a house. I made this point in the "rape" thread regarding rape in marriage. Big deal his DNA was in his wife, never going to prove a rape if sex has occurred recently between the two.

However the advent of DNA along with interview guide lines in PACE are excellent insofaras the suspect has to account for his DNA at a scene or the court may draw an inference from his silence or denial. Further if charged his DNA will be taken (by force if needs be) to PROVE or DISPROVE his/her innocence.

Further there are no stated cases that a conviction has been based on DNA alone. That would be ludicrous.

DNA is a miracle and three letters that is the best weapon in the crime systems' arsenal.

[JudgeJ]

Capital Punishment for murder was “suspended” for five years in 1965. It was abolished in 1969. At the time of its suspension and subsequent abolition MPs were told that the mandatory death sentence for murder would be replaced by a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. This sentence, they and the electorate were told, was to be exactly what it says on the tin; i.e. the miscreant would remain imprisoned until death. Most people were happy with that notion.

The sentences passed for murder, along with those passed for almost all other offences, have been systematically reduced in the intervening years. It is now not uncommon for murderers to be released after serving as little as seven years (having been sentenced to “life”). It is very unusual for a murderer to spend the rest of his (or her) days in prison. So unusual in fact that the very idea usually encourages gasps of indignation and threats of escalation to the Court of Human Rights should it be even considered for an individual.

The electorate needs to wake up and smell the coffee; otherwise the only safe place to be for law-abiding citizens will be in prison! Bearing in mind that the death sentence is most unlikely ever to be reintroduced, a good starting point would be to campaign for mandatory “whole life” sentences for all murders.