PC Harper killers sentenced

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

16 year and 13 year sentences.

I doubt they would have got much more if the murder charge had been successful.

I am glad to see the judge wasn’t convinced by their arguments.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-46544144

Unless it's a pattern of behaviour that they have previously been found guilty of and convicted for, then all that they can be sentenced on, is this offence. This is the offence they are being tried for, in a court of law, that has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that they may then be sentenced on.

What could have happened in the past as a result of their behaviour, or what could happen in the future as a result of such behaviour, is not something that may be factored into sentencing.

[quote Caelano]@PinkSparklyPussyCat I don’t think anyone on here feels sympathy for these thugs; indeed many of us would happily see even tougher sentencing for certain situations. My own feeling is that these thugs put so many innocent lives in danger on a regular basis (burglary with weapons, driving recklessly etc) that the public should be protected for as long as possible. Even if the terrible events with PC harper hadn’t happened, so many other lives were put at risk that night- and it was clearly completely normalised behaviour for these thugs.

But I can still see that blaming the jurors is completely wrong. They can’t convict for murder unless there is evidence beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, there wasn’t. That’s not their fault. Neither is it the judge’s fault that he has to act within sentencing guidelines. A few ignorant posters don’t seem to get that[/quote]
I hope you're not still including me in the ignorant posters group! My first post about the jury was badly worded and I understand why the jury couldn't convict them of murder. It must be bloody hard to be a juror in those circumstances, possibly wanting to convict them of murder but not being able to. (I'm just thinking how I might feel, hence 'possibly')

Thankfully the majority see them for what they are, scum. If they do get out of prison it won't be long until they are back, having harmed more people.

Thankfully the majority see them for what they are, scum. If they do get out of prison it won't be long until they are back, having harmed more people.

You know what, there was a thread here the other day where the (clearly lovely, literate, middle class) OP's son had been arrested for drink driving. He was twice the legal limit and wrapped his car round a tree with two of his mates inside. He's looking at a fine and a driving ban. The narrative was 'youthful high-jinks, this will have scared the shit out of him, I'm sure he's learned his lesson'.

Some traveller kids try to nick a quad bike, something goes wrong an a copper dies horribly (but as far as the law is concerned, accidentally) in the process. These people are 'scum' who are incapable of rehabilitation and will inevitably hurt more people once they're released after 10 years.

Both have, as far as I'm concerned, committed serious crimes. The second is much worse because of the consequences though if the first had resulted in the deaths of the passengers, it would be hard to distinguish in my book. One's a nice middle class kid and the others are travellers. Various posts on this thread have already been deleted for blatant racism. Do I need to spell out what's going on here?

@PinkSparklyPussyCat no I wasn’t meaning you!

@mbosnz yes I completely get that, I’m talking in broader terms about possible reform of legislation. Having said that, I thought at least one of the defendants did have previous?

My point is, that the worst cases of manslaughter like this, would have a pattern of behaviour - the defendants actually said themselves that it was regular behaviour to drive as fast as possible, endangering other road users, if they knew the police were after them, because they knew the police can’t do the same - the police have to be mindful of the public. This is so far from other manslaughter cases where eg: someone drives recklessly as a one- off.

I realise that in this case, the judgement was about this event alone. I’m talking in terms of a wider review that would enable the public to be protected from people like this. It’s not about revenge, it’s about public protection

My point is, that the worst cases of manslaughter like this, would have a pattern of behaviour - the defendants actually said themselves that it was regular behaviour to drive as fast as possible, endangering other road users, if they knew the police were after them, because they knew the police can’t do the same - the police have to be mindful of the public.

But caelano, taken in isolation - and of course things change when someone dies - but is this behaviour any worse than repeated drink driving whilst well over the limit?

I'm not disputing that the guilty parties here are fucking cunts. They are, obviously. But the reality is probably that you're more likely to kill someone driving whilst off your tits than trying to steal a quad bike.

Did they have previous for murder? Because that's what has to be taken into account for previous pattern of behaviour, it really has to be very similar - so another vehicular homicide in very similar circumstances. Because, remember, they were being tried for murder.

Likelihood of death, or even recklessness or gross negligence towards death resulting from their actions, is insufficient.

Public protection, I get what you're saying. But you're getting perilously close to saying people should be convicted and sentenced, not for what they had done, but what they might have done. And that's a bloody slippery slope!

You've still got the burden of proof. How do you prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they would cause someone's death in the future, if sentenced to x, rather than y?

'Some traveller kids try to nick a quad bike, something goes wrong an a copper dies horribly (but as far as the law is concerned, accidentally) in the process. These people are 'scum' who are incapable of rehabilitation and will inevitably hurt more people once they're released after 10 years'

Oh stop being so utterly disingenuous. If these 'traveller kids' had accidentally killed their passengers having wrapped their car round a tree or knocked PC Harper over then there would not be the outrage. It would be terrible but an accident. The 'traveller' bit isn't the issue no matter how much you want it to be, it's the prolonged torture that is the issue. You do what they did and you know the person will die. I'm not sure what kind of proof you and caleano want. The facts are the proof.

Public protection, I get what you're saying. But you're getting perilously close to saying people should be convicted and sentenced, not for what they had done, but what they might have done. And that's a bloody slippery slope!

I've sympathy for what Caelano is angling at, and one concern is that locking a career criminal up only delays inevitable reoffending (cf. Ken Noye).

As I remember it they tried something in the States a couple of decades ago called 'three strikes and out'. Basically if there was a pattern of reoffending which featured in any aspect some kind of serious crime, the third offence landed you with a life sentence no matter what. The net effect was that the prisons filled up (even more) with black men who had been convicted of stealing a hot dog or some other trifling offence.

I don't know where I'm going with this except to say that the balancing act around this kind of thing is a difficult one, and we have to be careful not to lock people up for long periods based on who they are and not what they've done.

'we have to be careful not to lock people up for long periods based on who they are and not what they've done'

Absolutely. Of course we don't lock people up for long periods for who they are, what a ridiculous thing to suggest. It's always about what they have done.

@thedancingbear All you are doing is sticking up for the rights of the criminals, with no regard for the victim.

I once lived next to a drug dealer, he had a "family" look after him, he and his protectors were untouchable, even the Police said move, there is no way you can fight them, to them prison means nothing and you and your partners life mean even less, an elderly neighbour D-Day vet tried, they sloshed petrol through his letter box and told him the match would follow if he didn't shut the xxxx up, go to the Police and they'd rape his wife!

Fast forward 25 years, 1 is dead, another is in jail for life for a double murder and the last one is in prison for GBH.

Personally, i'd just throw them off a cliff, they are a waste of air.

You'd soon change your tune if you ever crossed paths with these sorts of scum.

Unless we have much more aggressive early years intervention, the cycle of criminality will just continue but we are along way from that.

'thedancingbear you are a tedious apologist'

It's awful isn't it, talk of 'traveller kids' and 'a copper' as if it was all a silly prank that just went wrong.

'the reality is probably that you're more likely to kill someone driving whilst off your tits than trying to steal a quad bike.'

It's not about the quad bike

@GetOffYourHighHorse Its actually offensive to read isnt it. So disingenuous and missing every point relevant to this case. How anyone can be such an apologist makes me sick.

@thedancingbear I would say repeat drink driving is just as bad. I completely understand what you’re saying... it becomes very complex when you’re talking about what people might do as opposed to what they’ve actually done

I’m not talking about a tinkering with current guidelines though. I’m talking about a turning point, a fundamental change of culture really. The fact is that the consequences of this Kind of situation are just as bad For the relatives as if the person had been murdered, and it was pure chance that with that sort of driving, other people hadn’t been killed. I think as a society we need to recognise that there are some habitual normalised behaviours which the public are entitled to be protected from. Being a habitual burglar who takes weapons to houses, planning to drive at high speeds after committing a crime, regular drink or drug driving - yeap, I would say all of those are extremely serious because they regularly Put the public at risk of death. These sorts of offences are not the same as a one off. I think it would send out a very powerful message to the public that Such high risk behaviour is absolutely intolerable in a civilised society.

I am all for giving people a second chance, even a 3rd or a 4th but when it comes to killing someone, the victim doesn't get a 2nd chance nor do their loved ones.

This was one of the most awful crimes i've ever come across, poor PC Harper would have suffered horribly and his killers showed no remorse, didn't stop and never assisted the Police in their investigations, so as we haven't the death penalty (on balance rightly so)
Throw away the key.

It’s well known that middle class / white collar crimes are often viewed less seriously than crimes committed by people in a lower socioeconomic group.
So MP’s get told off for fiddling expenses but benefit fraudsters get hammered.

Drink driving probably does carry a higher risk of causing a death than this sort of thievery.

Drink drivers dont tend to deliberately torture their victims to death, however

If it could be shown it was deliberate then the would have been convicted of murder.

sigh

Those are all good points Caelano and ChazsBrilliantAttitude.

Caelano I think your comments illuminate that there are various distortions in how we perceive different kinds of crime, based on the nature of the offence, various historical factors, and frankly who the perpetrators are.

I think some of the other semi-literate and occasionally racist ramblings on this thread help show why it's so difficult for there to be a balanced public discourse about criminal justice. I guess this probably applies in nearly every country of the world.

@gypsywater

Drink drivers dont tend to deliberately torture their victims to death, however

Exactly. The comparisons been made are staggering.

'could be shown it was deliberate then the would have been convicted of murder.'

Yep. Just a silly quad bike theft that went wrong eh! Good grief.

@GetOffYourHighHorse Some posters here really need to take a hard look at themselves and think about the points they are actually pushing...shocking

@thedancingbear
Attention seeking, pious apologism is never "reasoned debate"