AIBU to think PC Harper's killers being released early is awful?

They should have gone down for murder. If you ask the public, I guarantee 90 per cent would agree.

It's a perverse lefty verdict.

Because we had public executions yet crime persisted.

It’s a just verdict.

It's not. The 3 should've gone down for murder.

Yes, but we didn't have the welfare state. There isn't the justification for crime that there was in the Victorian period. Hang'em high.

There are people, on Mumsnet, who think that isn't murder.
Well, they'd be correct.

Murder requires either the intention to kill or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm. Anything less than those specific intentions, including recklessness, cannot amount to murder.

Dragging someone long a bumpy road does not constitute intent to cause GBH?

Precisely. It’s quite entertaining watching those completely ignorant about the law shooting their mouths off about something they know nothing about.

I can't work out what's wrong with you. You are either on some silly wind up, wilfully obtuse or lacking critical thought. None of which are a good look.

If they intended to drag him, sure.

I'm not familiar with the case but, on the previous page, you yourself said they did so recklessly.

(I should say that Harper's Law changed this, so now recklessness can be sufficient mens rea if the accused was committing a crime and the victim was an on-duty emergency services worker - but that's a unique exception to the law that arose from this case and did not previously exist).

I think there are people on here who think that because they come from a disadvantaged community, it's not their fault that they steal. If I had been on that jury, I would have emphasized that I would be prepared to starve to death before I would have concurred with anything less than guilty of murder.

In which case there would have been a minority verdict.

Nothing wrong with me, just fed up with the people who prey on the hard-working, honest citizen.

Its ben confirmed that his killers WILL be released early. It was on tonight's news.
I hope Andy Pandy is proud of himself 😡

Surely, Burnham can find an exuse not to release these scumbags?

‘Murder’ and ‘manslaughter’ are legal terms with very precise definitions, not ones you can just select based on how terrible you personally think a crime was. You would have been remiss in your duty as a juror if you had taken that stance.

Manslaughter was very obviously the correct conviction here, given the sequence of events and the lack of provable intent or premeditation.

Hopefully you'll never be on a jury. The law is the law, and should be properly applied. None of us are immune to angry responses to heinous crimes but we should never just chuck the law out of window in favor of our own emotions.

I hope I am never on a jury, too. But I would've felt it my duty to find hem guilty of murder. And I would have held out.

Thats not how it works. 😂

A jurors duty is to decide whether the prosecution has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, each of the elements of an offence. You take an oath to that effect.

Even if you think it "morally good" to resolutely make a "legally bad" decision in the moment, you'd be increasing the likelihood of a mistrial.

They can magic migrant camps from nowhere.

Its not going to be as secure no but stick them all in their with tags on as backup is better than releasing them full stop.

Bring back the rope.

@AppropriateAdult That’s correct. The two in question were in the car, but did not drive it. We must maintain the difference between manslaughter and murder and many people listen to a short angry sound bite and then think they understand the law.

Im also against victims dictating policy. They always want people locked up and the key thrown away. The government has to stand firm about the crime people are actually convicted for, not the one some people would have liked.

If it didn't fit the parameters of murder, then the parameters of murder should be changed.