3 x police killer Harry Roberts was NEVER “our friend”, but……

[Isitmebut]

Living in London in the 1960’s, there was a sick anti police chant used for decades, that I heard too often on those inner London streets, ‘celebrating’ Robert’s actions.

Harry Roberts has now served 48-years in prison, and on his parole review, three members of the Parole Board has chosen to release him.
“Police killer Harry Roberts to be freed”
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29734816

I have very mixed opinions on this, involving IMO the usually too light sentence served for any murder, the justified time served ‘premium’ for killing a police officer and after 48-years has Roberts paid his debt to society - with the proviso that we can never bring a murdered victim back and the ‘life sentence’ carries on for everyone that knew those three policeman.

And I seriously cannot rationalise the answer, which is personally worrying that I might be going soft, as would have hung-him-high THREE TIMES in one day 48-years ago, and a few decades after.

Any thoughts?

You and Wolfbasher appear to be under the impression that a longer sentence has more deterrent effect. What makes you think that?

I do not share your view that murders are more or less serious depending on the occupation of the victim.

I do think that criminals are deterred from killing police officers because it carries a more serious tariff.

It's not that someone's occupation makes them more 'worthy' and therefore their killer should be punished more severely. It's that we require police officers to confront and arrest criminals on our behalf, and therefore 'in return' we should afford them the (possibly slender) protection of a higher tariff for killing them.

PJ .... re "You and Wolfbasher appear to be under the impression that a longer sentence has more deterrent effect. What makes you think that?"

FYI you are not justifying Hamas on here, putting words in others mouths - neither of us made such a sweeping statement, we specifically mentioned for killing police officers - and while I don't have specific data (others might), we are not talking Islamic Jihadist here, willing to die for a cause at the drop of a hat, by shooting their way out.

Any criminal here with loved ones and a family, just thinking twice about pulling a trigger will shorten such murders, and if not, the judges NOW at least have direction to throw the key away.

I had not seen this policy (including prison guards) had become 'official' this year.
www.gov.uk/government/news/police-and-prison-officer-killers-to-face-life-in-prison

Still doesn't sound like he's a nice 'man' amd has turned over a new leaf. He was turned down for parole in 2009 and still considered a danger then.

www.euroweeklynews.com/news/uk/item/123758-cop-killer-harry-roberts-to-be-freed

Hmmm .... looks like he has the same 'work experience' and temper as Jim in Coronation Street, it doesn't look so good.

He passed the 'ink blot' etc tests e.g. is it a kbat or a thong, but dont know how good that is.

I think police killers should get more time in prison, I know very very little about this case but 50 years is a long time

what pp have said re police putting themselves in danger also i think public order comes into it

i agree though he really doesn't sound ready to be released after his 2009 incident

Isitmebut

We can do without your unfounded and untrue accusations of "putting words into people's mouths"

Wolfbasher

"I do think that criminals are deterred from killing police officers because it carries a more serious tariff."

But what makes you think that?

Isitmebut
"as a DETERRENT, is might make them think twice about pulling the trigger."

But what makes you think that?

I can't see how your logic stands up against any other front line professional eg fire brigade - should arsonists serve a longer term if a fireman is killed or shorter if a homeless person?

I agree that politicians should emphatically NOT be involved in sentencing and should be focussing on honouring their existing commitments on pensions etc.

PigletJohn .... Look up the DEFINITION of a deterrent.

A 'throw away the key' prison sentence would deter me, would it not you?

Or are you Hamas in disguise and life, whether Palastinian or Israelis, in or out of uniform, is cheap?

Life should mean life. But I have really harsh views on criminals. I would be happy to go back to Victorian prisons when they had to earn their keep. Mind numbingly boring menial labour in exchange for some bread and peas for dinner.

And in my eyes murdering a policeman is the same as murdering anyone else. Policeman are not special, their lives are not worth extra, it is a job they chose to do and are paid to do.

Isitmebut

You are being very silly with what appears to be some kind of racist slur.

You are also suggesting that my knowledge of the English language is inadequate for me to understand the word "deterrent." This is foolish of you.

My question was, what makes you think that a longer sentence has more deterrent effect?

pantone363: "Baby P's killers are out of prison?

I'm sorry WHAT?"

Here you go - this is the mum being released:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-24446126

Jason Owen released earlier this year:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690364/Baby-P-killer-released-prison-three-months-early-given-new-identity.html

I can't pretend to understand it.

Piglet - there have been some studies which find that longer sentences have a deterrent effect - here's a Wikipedia summary: link

My, rather less scientific, thinking was that killing a police officer tends to be a 'fight your way out when in danger of getting caught' response - so, rather than it being the initial crime committed by someone who is not yet a criminal, it is something done by a criminal trying to evade capture. As such, there's more of a 'What lengths am I prepared to go to?' decision to be made, so logic comes into it more than it does with other murders.

Just my internet musings, rather than scientifically tested theory! I do also think (as a pp suggested by mentioning the 'public order' dimension) that we have to reinforce our 'keeping public order' system by showing increased punishment for those who directly attack it (i.e. by attacking police officers in the course of their duty upholding the law).

So, I suppose, I don't think there should be an enhanced sentence for, say, a wife who kills her husband who just happens to be a police officer, but I do for a criminal who kills the same police officer trying to arrest him.

As your link says "Some research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime, while increasing the certainty of punishment does have a deterrent effect.[11] "Clearly, enhancing the severity of punishment will have little impact on people who do not believe they will be apprehended for their actions."

Consider, for example, the knowledge that an action will probably result in your early and painful death. This is a very severe result, and you might expect it to have more deterrent effect than a temporary discomfort.

As you will have observed however, and as behavioural science confirms

"If you smoke cigarettes, then, in forty years or so, you might get emphysema, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis and be unable to move from your chair without an oxygen cylinder, and you will probably die long before your time" is very ineffective in preventing the tobacco companies from recruiting new young addicts to replace the old ones who are killed off.

But "touch that iron with your finger and you will get a small burn" deters people from touching the iron. It is certain, personal, and immediate.

"If you murder someone, and you are caught, you might go to prison for twenty years." If that fails to deter you, then it appears that a long prison sentence is not much of a deterrent for you. Although possibly you will decide to kill any witnesses.

Personally, I am undeterred from committing murder by the severity of the sentence. I murder just as many people as I feel like. Which is none.

The assumption that increasing the severity of punishment reduces crime is mistaken.

Piglet - yes, as the link says some research shows that certainty of punishment is more important than severity.

However, it goes on to say that The most recent studies into the matter though have found that deterrence (by increased severity for worse crimes) does cause a decrease in criminal acts. It describes a US study which showed that introducing an 'add-on' sentence for carrying a gun while carrying out crimes did reduce the number of criminals carrying guns.

I think, in a similar way, the 'add-on' sentence (i.e. increased length of incarceration) for criminals who kill police officers when being stopped for questioning or arrest, does reduce the number of criminals who do this.

It's not saying that murdering a police officer is worse than killing a postman or a teacher or a homeless drug addict. It's saying that an additional crime is being committed - of attacking our system of law and order, and this carries an additional sentence.

I think this comes under 'marginal deterrence' as explained in my original link - here's an abbreviated quote from it.

'Marginal deterrence is a principle in theory of criminal justice, stating that a more severe crime should be punished more severely than a lesser crime...(it) is intended to deter criminals to limit their criminal acts. Without marginal deterrence, a criminal could benefit from ... using illegal methods to suppress law enforcement. As an example, if robbery without force gave the same punishment as robbery by murder, a robber could make a rational choice to kill the victims to evade their testimonies.

Or, in the case at point, the robber might kill the police officer who stops him in the street for erratic driving, knowing that if the officer looks in the boot he'll find the stolen goods.

I do agree, though, Piglet, that without a reasonable certainty that you'll be caught, marginal deterrence won't work.

So if the police force is so underfunded that a killer of police officers feels they're unlikely to be caught, then they won't be deterred by the additional sentence.

You need the certainty before you have the severity. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't have both.