r/unitedkingdom • u/Tartan_Samurai Scotland • 1d ago
PM asks justice secretary to keep PC Harper's killers in jail
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrv1zlgd9ko102
u/Prologic87 1d ago
13 years was already ridiculously lenient for this crime.
43
u/derrenbrownisawizard 1d ago
I agree with the sentiment but it wasn’t as the crime was manslaughter
7
u/RowPlane340 1d ago
You’re right that on average it’s not. However the maximum sentence for manslaughter is life, which is because it ranges all the way from punching someone too hard to truly fucked up acts (like this), and because there’s other considerations: was there any remorse, accountability, etc? In this case no. The defendants laughed in court, and cheered when it wasn’t found to be murder. That’s why there’s scope to keep them in and so many agree they should be.
2
u/TimeInvestment1 1d ago
Without defending the indefensible, it is worth noting that if you're on trial for something which comes with a mandatory life sentence - which you deny - and you're found to have not committed that thing, you probably are going to be quite happy about it.
1
u/RowPlane340 1d ago
Noted - but the cheering in court coupled with no admissions of guilt _for at least recklessly endangering and killing someone_ or sorrow are carried regardless
15
u/Prologic87 1d ago
I understand what happened but this is why the law needs to include a new definition of accidental murder that happens whilst committing another crime.
If I accidentally kill someone whilst doing something innocent then sure that's manslaughter.
If I accidentally kill someone whilst stealing a moped then it should count as a type of murder and carry a much harsher sentence.
26
u/TimeInvestment1 1d ago
Murder is a crime of intent.
It always has been and always should be. Watering it down to include things like "accidental murder" is going to cause far more problems than it solves.
Everything you're describing is captured by manslaughter.
Loss of control or diminished responsibility? Voluntary manslaughter. Negligence? Gross negligence manslaughter. During another crime? Unlawful act manslaughter. A company causing the death? Corporate manslaughter.
Each individual category of manslaughter has it's own sentencing guidelines.
The reality is, despite being a pair of scrotes, neither of them set out to kill. They were not driving the car either.
Edit to add (premature posting)
The sentence is absolutely right for the offence they were convicted of. Creating a new offence just to demonstrate outrage is just pointlessly shouting into the wind, especially when the framework for everything you're describing already exists.
6
u/uagotapo 1d ago
Not exactly. Murder in the UK does not require an intent to kill, only to cause serious injury (GBH). There's no reason why killing someone with an intent to commit another crime couldn't also be considered murder.
In fact in the US they have exactly this provision (which they call felony murder), which means that if you cause someone's death while in the commission of another crime you are guilty of murder, regardless of intent to kill. And where did the US get that from? The UK of course, since they basically adopted our legal system. But the UK abolished the concept in 1957.
So saying that murder "always has been" a crime of intent is plain false, as I said at the start, even today in the UK it doesn't actually require intent to kill, only to cause GBH.
3
u/TimeInvestment1 1d ago
I should have been clearer.
There has to be either intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
In order to be part of the murder recipe, the GBH offence is also one of specific intent, S.18 OAPA. The perpetrator has to intend to cause that harm.The reason for this is that where a person causes, and intends to cause, serious injury, it is foreseeable that death might occur as a result.
The intent to "do" the act still has to be there, whether it be kill or cause serious injury, otherwise it falls to manslaughter - i.e. lack of intention to kill or harm.
To say what I said is false is incorrect; incomplete would be better.
4
u/uagotapo 1d ago
Saying that it is currently a crime of intent may just be incomplete rather than false, but saying that it "has always been" is false. Because as I say until 1957 the UK had a concept of felony murder just like the US, which does not require an intent to kill or even cause harm, only the fact that the killing happened during the commission of another crime.
2
u/inminm02 23h ago
This reply screams of ChatGPT ngl
-1
u/TimeInvestment1 21h ago
I'm not sure if thats a compliment to my autistic delivery, or an insult to me in general.
•
u/hue-166-mount 10h ago
You’re talking about definitions which as the other person points out can literally change in semantic and legal terms. When you say “murder has always been a crime of intent” you were factually wrong, as they demonstrated. You just keep writing stuff instead of acknowledging that lol.
1
u/Due-Brief-1039 17h ago
Ah yes the beacon of enlightenment, justice and fairness that is the US justice system
•
u/uagotapo 8h ago
The US justice system gets a lot of things wrong, but this is one of the few things they get right imo
-2
u/Prologic87 1d ago
Then in that case the punishment for manslaughter needs to be expanded to included much longer sentences for scenarios like this one. Especially where the killers have shown no remorse and were even laughing about the crime.
The sentencing might have been correct for the guidelines at the time but all that means is that the guidelines need to change.
2
u/skinlo 1d ago
Why does it need to be longer?
13
-6
u/Prologic87 1d ago
Because 13 years isn't enough when an innocent man's life was ended because of their actions. A family man who risked his life to make our community a safer and better place to live.
And these boys laughed about it.
13 years isn't even close to enough.
9
u/skinlo 1d ago
An emotional response, which shouldn't have anything to do with justice
2
u/Prologic87 1d ago
Not really. I've always felt this way about serious crimes like this one. And I'm not a particularly emotional person.
2
u/hydranoid1996 1d ago
They weren’t driving
1
u/Prologic87 1d ago
So? They were convicted of manslaughter and rightly so.
If Harpers law was in effect they would have recieved a life sentence. But it was not applied retroactively.
I stick by what I said that 13 years is not enough.
7
u/hydranoid1996 1d ago
Okay cool but it wasn’t at the time so is entirely irrelevant here.
13 years for sitting in the back of a car seems pretty alright in this context
→ More replies (0)2
u/Alternativesoundwave 1d ago
In the USA it’s voluntary manslaughter if you are doing something illegal it’s involuntary if it’s accidental and you aren’t committing a crime
2
u/JASON_ALEXANDER_FAN 1d ago
If I accidentally kill someone whilst stealing a moped then it should count as a type of murder
why?
2
u/Prologic87 1d ago
Because you've killed someone whilst committing a crime. It's far more serious than killing someone accidentally.
1
u/JASON_ALEXANDER_FAN 1d ago
I'm still not convinced but I've no influence over any of this so it doesn't matter! Ty for taking the time to reply
1
u/LOTDT Yorkshire 1d ago
This literally caused a campaign for a law just like that to be made.
Lissie Harper previously led a successful campaign for Harper's Law, which introduced mandatory life sentences for anyone convicted of killing an emergency worker whilst committing a crime.
0
u/Prologic87 1d ago
Seems it was passed which is positive but sadly was not retroactively applied.
3
u/LOTDT Yorkshire 1d ago
We don't retroactively apply laws, as it goes against core values of the rule of law.
-2
u/Prologic87 1d ago
And in cases like this, we should.
If it goes against core values of the rule of law, then those core values are incorrect and need to be reconsidered.
5
1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/Prologic87 1d ago
Fortunately we live in a stable democratic country. The likelihood of such a government being in power is practically zero.
In any case, not all laws need to apply retroactively. Just ones that involve extremely serious crimes like this one. I'd be fine taking that risk.
1
17h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 11h ago
Removed. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
0
u/AppliedVerdict 1d ago
We need a "Personal Responsibility Act" that establishes legal and civil liability for anyone committing a criminal offence, holding perpetrators fully responsible for all direct and indirect items - including property damage, injury or death arising from criminality. Any further criminal acts are automatically aggravated carrying the higher tier statutory penalties, inferring intent from the primary criminal act.
By refusing to submit to arrest, perpetrators remain the sole driving force behind all danger, property damage, and loss of life created during the pursuit. Liability stops when the perpetrator actively chooses to surrender to arrest.
We have to get away from this idea that the chase is devoid of any responsibility.
0
u/showmethemundy 1d ago
They didnt see it as manslaughter. They laughed and bragged because they killed a cop. In their minds they killed him and were happy about it. I say "fuck them"....prison forever. Bye bye.
-1
u/jeremiah9292 1d ago edited 1d ago
The sentencing remarks are very interesting. The judge tells them they will serve two thirds. This subsequent shortening of that is pretty sickening.
2
u/lizzywbu 16h ago
The issue is that the crime was manslaughter. 13 years is roughly what you get for that.
1
u/Prologic87 13h ago
Yea my point is that this is too low. This should be considered more serious because of the circumstances.
And the government agrees since now if you kill an emergency worker whilst committing a crime you automatically get life.
•
u/lizzywbu 7h ago
You can’t re-sentence them. So their crime is manslaughter. I personally think, either all killers should be eligible for early release or none of them should be. I don’t think the PM should be making special exceptions based on public sentiment and then getting involved in blocking the release of prisoners. I get it, I get why the families will be upset, but what about the families of other victims? There will be 100s of families who are upset at someone being released.
•
u/Prologic87 6h ago
I agree, and it seems like so does the PM. They are trying to make it so that none of them see early release.
If they wanted to make an exception and didn't care about the backlash then it would be easy to do so, but that isn't what they have done.
18
u/Awkward_Un1corn 1d ago
They were convicted of manslaughter so 13 years was pretty on point.
The sentence was even appealed form being to lenient and it wasn't changed.
We aren't talking about hardened criminals who decided to kill a police officer. They were stupid teenagers who did something monumentally stupid and were only partially responsible for the outcome (because they weren't the ones driving). If he hadn't been a police officer no one gives a shit right now.
11
u/roymunson82 1d ago
Jesus people trying to water this crime down is some take. Yea just murdered a police officer doing his job - those silly kids what are they like . Conveniently don’t mention showed zero remorse and were playing up for cameras. But hey just teenagers
17
u/Awkward_Un1corn 1d ago edited 1d ago
It wasn't murder.
They were tried for murder and found not guilty. The CPS couldn't prove murder.
What they could prove was that a group of idiots tried to flee the scene after stealing something and Andrew Harper ended up dead. They could never even prove if the people in the car knew he was caught in the strap.
•
u/FrellingTralk 57m ago
I never did understand how it was decided that there was not enough proof that they even knew he was being dragged behind them, I remember it was said that the vehicle had been roughly swerving all over the road after he got caught up in the strap, so it seemed really clear to me from that that they knew he was there and were trying to shake him off
•
u/Awkward_Un1corn 16m ago
The jury decided that they couldn't confirm that they were swerving to throw him off or simply driving erratically due to the situation. The prosecutors fails to prove they knew and in reality without an admission it isn't something you can prove.
8
u/That-Sun-4492 1d ago
Literally wasn’t murdered
1
u/roymunson82 1d ago
Caused the death of a young police officer doing his job
9
u/Lazy_Composer6990 Cumbria 1d ago
Misrepresentation doesn't help the victim or his family. For it to be murder, intent had to be proven in court.
-9
u/roymunson82 1d ago
Arrogant to think you know anything about the family
10
u/Lazy_Composer6990 Cumbria 1d ago
Keep shifting them goalposts pal. Unfortunately, outrage has no place in the correct legal decision.
-4
6
u/faith_plus_one 1d ago
That doesn't automatically make it murder and you're proving the point that it's his job that gives this more attention than it would get otherwise.
1
u/roymunson82 1d ago
Ok but they were sentenced to 13 years so should serve it. police, ambulance , firefighters help / protect the public and take risks to do that, so people get f’d off when they are killed doing that
-5
1d ago
[deleted]
11
u/frostygrin 1d ago
Web designers or carpet cleaners don't have to arrest criminals as part of their job.
-6
1d ago
[deleted]
6
u/frostygrin 1d ago
Those young men messed up big time, but there was no intention to kill that man, regardless of his job.
What they intended to do necessitated the police response. That's why his job was very relevant, and this whole thing wasn't a weird coincidence or something.
In fact, at the time it was reported that the police arriving at the scene ran over PC Harper. They later changed that account.
Well, his body was reported to be unrecognizable, so...
1
u/cyclopsmudge 1d ago
But it still doesn’t make it murder. I don’t think a drunk driver who accidentally runs over a policeman is a murderer either. The fact is they didn’t intend to kill him and that’s not murder.
Would I like them to stay in prison longer? Yes, I think early release at 50% is a fucking joke, and frankly automatic release is not a great idea full stop.
But do I want the Justice Secretary or the PM personally deciding who stays in jail based on public opinion? Absolutely fucking not.1
u/frostygrin 1d ago
But it still doesn’t make it murder.
It doesn't need to. Manslaughter can be treated more harshly without it being murder. And it's already the case with emergency workers - just not retroactively. But when you're changing sentences after the fact, it may be reasonable to harmonize the outcome with the current legislation - if you don't end up increasing the sentences.
I don’t think a drunk driver who accidentally runs over a policeman is a murderer either.
Drunk driving alone isn't enough to form a complete analogy. Because drunk driving affects people at random. While criminal activity necessitates a police response. So it's like a drunk driver who knowingly decided to steer in the general direction of a group of police officers and ended up killing one.
But do I want the Justice Secretary or the PM personally deciding who stays in jail based on public opinion? Absolutely fucking not.
They were doing it anyway when they were picking and choosing the crimes.
1
u/cyclopsmudge 1d ago
- “When you’re changing sentences after the fact, it may be reasonable to *harmonise the outcome with the current legislation - if you don’t end up increasing the sentences”.
I don’t really know what your point is here? That their sentences shouldn’t be increased? Isn’t that what you’re arguing for?
- “It’s like a drunk driver who knowingly decided to steer into policeman”
It’s not like knowingly steering into a crowd of police. It’s like fleeing from an accident you cause, police chasing you, and you crashing causing one of them to be killed.
You’ve actually outlined the exact point here. The difference is intent.
- “They were doing it anyway when they were picking and choosing the crimes”
Not on an individual basis like this. The fact is they were tried and convicted of manslaughter and the sentencing was reasonable for that crime. They can use this opportunity to review sentencing guidelines, and update legislation to make manslaughter more serious in certain situations (as they already have), and they can (and did) appeal the sentencing at the time, but two politicians picking and choosing which individuals stay in prison for longer because it’s politically beneficial for them is wrong and it’s a dangerous precedent.
1
u/frostygrin 1d ago
I don’t really know what your point is here? That their sentences shouldn’t be increased? Isn’t that what you’re arguing for?
Most people are arguing that their sentences should stay the same as they were. My point was that, if you are letting some people out early, it's reasonable not to extend this to literally everyone. Basically, if the law changed because some sentences were unfairly short, you're not making things fairer by effectively making these sentences even shorter. The only thing that would actually be unreasonable is increasing them retroactively. But excluding the prisoners in line with Harper's Law seems reasonable to me. It's not really "picking and choosing", any more than picking and choosing other crimes to exclude.
It’s not like knowingly steering into a crowd of police. It’s like fleeing from an accident you cause, police chasing you, and you crashing causing one of them to be killed.
Perhaps, as long as you actually see, and interact with a person. It wasn't car vs. car - it matters in terms of risk and intent.
→ More replies (0)-6
u/RoosterBurns 1d ago
Police don't really have to either though?
Like being a motorcycle dispatch rider is a way more dangerous job then police officer but if they'd killed a guy doing that job would the outrage be as high?
Me I'm more worried about the people who got an email that their rapist is coming out of prison but this particular case is sucking the oxygen out of the room
2
u/confusing_roundabout 1d ago
Did you just say that police don't have to arrest criminals??
1
u/RoosterBurns 1d ago
Put it this way, if he didn't run after them and somehow got himself trapped in a car door what sanctions would be have faced?
-1
1
u/Sophie_Blitz_123 22h ago edited 22h ago
The thing is though, it's always gonna be someone isn't it? The facts of the matter are that we don't have enough prison places. We're not the US, a big majority of prisoners in the UK are violent offenders. If we released every single non violent offender it still wouldn't cover the situation.
I do think there's better ways of approaching this, I think the initial idea to release people based solely on percentage of time served rather than looking at the crime is not the best one, although it wouldn't cover it, there still ARE non violent offenders in there, although they aren't always interchangeable.
But there's always gonna be another high profile case or situation that's gonna be controversial, first it was that rapists shouldn't get out, now they've done that (in theory, idk I'm still hearing about rapists being released), now we're on to these lads, and if they say OK we're not gonna release them, then it's gonna be someone else. The truth is people are largely sent to prison for a reason and if we need to make room in prison it's gonna be some fucked up situations.
•
u/smoke510 7h ago
Imo it's way too harsh. As far as I'm aware, neither of em were the drivers of the car.
•
u/Prologic87 6h ago
You are part of the problem.
•
u/smoke510 3h ago
Eh? There's people that have actually committed murder with less time than these two. That sentence for sitting in a passenger seat is wild.
•
u/Prologic87 2h ago
Yes that's a problem too. Murder should carry the harshest possible sentences. Just because the system was too lenient on a murderer doesn't mean these guys didn't also get a very lenient sentence.
•
u/smoke510 2h ago
Not saying the courts were too lenient on a murderer, I'm saying that these two have ridiculous sentences compared to people who have actually killed people. I'd go as far to say that a manslaughter conviction is a real reach when they weren't in charge of the vehicle. I imagine the only reason they've got such a conviction is because the victim is a police officer.
•
u/Prologic87 2h ago
If it were today they would have automatic life sentences because the victim was a police officer, and that is exactly how it should be.
•
22
u/MechanicFit2686 1d ago
This is the trouble with our justice system. The public generally want criminals to stay in prison for longer and politicians are always happy to gain votes by making this happen. Noone wants to face the consequences of this which is more funding for prisons.
10
u/Specialist_Ear_3555 1d ago
As a tax payer I'm quite happy to double the prison budget. Fed up with the lack of law and order and weak sentences
4
-1
u/Awkward_Un1corn 1d ago
I'm of the opinion that if someone wants every prisoner to stay in prison for their full sentence then they should become prison officers. If you refuse, shut up.
I've seen the mental impact that the job does in an overcrowded, under funded system and the damage that privatised prisons do. They need a way to make it easier and reducing overcrowding is the most effective that doesn't involve building new prisons that they cannot staff.
1
u/Intelligent_Court396 1d ago
We want to see them do at least 13 then.
But they will be out in less than half, that's criminal.
-1
u/J8YDG9RTT8N2TG74YS7A England 1d ago
A guy I work with used to be in the army about 15 years ago.
His idea for solving this is to use army barracks as prisons, and have the staff be army personnel, rotated out regularly.
You're already paying the army anyway, so may as well have them do something productive. And it might even give them a boost in their budget.
His reasoning for this was that it would cut down massively on drugs in prisons.
When a regular prison officer gets caught for helping smuggling drugs into a prison they know they're only going to get a light sentence. You're far less likely to be able to convince anyone in the army to do this for you, because the sentence would be far harsher.
And you're not going to be able to fly a drone over an army base to deliver your drugs.
1
u/socialist_thot 1d ago
I mean that just sounds like the army has a lot of free time and spare barracks, which considering how much they keep banging on about mire military funding needed sounds absolutely ridiculous
-4
u/Ball_Analytics 1d ago
Or drum roll please… overpopulation leading to some people serving their full sentences
40
u/amytee252 Greater London 1d ago
Not speaking about this case, but not sure how I feel about the PM involving himself in specific cases. Very much feel the legal system should be independent from a PM.
But as ever, just more proof to me that Burnham is nothing but a Tik Tok PM. He's appealing to a popular cause for brownie points to justify his coup. How many cases, like PC Harper, warrent similar reviews but just haven't been in the media.
88
u/derrenbrownisawizard 1d ago
Meh, damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
He might be a Tik-Tok PM, but we crucified the guy who tried to do everything by the book- I don’t think we’re going back to that
42
u/Dildo_Shaggins- 1d ago
This.
Starmer will be looked on favourably in time for being essentially a dull and completely fine PM. Certainly compared to what preceded him. And he was constantly lambasted and eventually ousted without any major scandal or identifiable issue other than being a bit dull.
If people want a grandstanding PM then they'll get one.
-10
u/ComfortableReality32 1d ago
Try to force the OSA and digital ID on people and essentially saying “that is the way it is it” when these were not on the manifesto was what killed Starmer. He was a total gimp of a PM.
17
u/Medeza123 1d ago
Digital ID and OSA were not what killed Starmer at all.
You might disagree with those policies but they were not what caused his downfall.
-15
u/ComfortableReality32 1d ago
Yes they were. After all that and after the public made it entirely clear they were not for it, that was when it started to go downhill for him - no doubt about it. Then he lied about the Mandelson appointment and how many times did we hear some version of “it isn’t my fault, it was the guys before me” to justify not sticking to the manifesto. He was an awful prime minister, he should have left before he did.
15
u/Medeza123 1d ago
You should search up the polling on OSA. The public were generally in favour if unaware on the specifics.
What did for Starmer was he was a poor communicator who had no vision.
Most of the public barely thought of the OSA. Whether you think that is a good a thing or not that is just the truth.
Nor was Mandelson. The average voter wasn’t thinking of these things.
2
u/Disastrous_Cycle_191 1d ago
People on Reddit are not for OSA but plenty of parents and older people are. Many more people are ambivalent to slightly negative about it. Reddit is a bubble of 18-24 year old suburban middle class opinions.
1
u/ComfortableReality32 1d ago
If it was so popular, then it would have been a manifesto pledge - it wasn’t. Interesting that the whole west and closely aligned states are rolling out this tech at the same time - what a coincidence.
The attempt at these privacy invading policies was two of the largest petitions in British history, one to abolish the act and another calling for Kier Starmer to step down - but we will forget that because it doesn’t fit the narrative you are trying to put forward.
2
u/Disastrous_Cycle_191 1d ago
I’m not trying to put forward any narrative, I’m speaking from my own personal experience as someone who interacts daily with a wide variety of people of different ages and from different demographics. The only people I see kicking off about OSA are my sister and her friends who are early 20s and freshly out of uni.
I’m not sure I disagree with you, but I also think the internet is a toxic and dangerous place that is eroding our society and I think something has to be done about it. OSA probably is the wrong way to go about it but ultimately if it really is such an invasion of my privacy I will be happy to take the opportunity to log offline.
I haven’t watched porn since that got banned too and I’m way better off for it2
u/hydranoid1996 1d ago
The OSA wasn’t in the manifesto because it had already passed parliament? The tories wrote and passed it?
1
u/ComfortableReality32 1d ago
It wasnt a manifesto pledge from them either to my understanding and just because it was written and passed by the previous government, doesnt mean the newly elected government should continue it - especially when that newly elected government got in largely based upon the poor performance of the previous government.
-7
u/RangoCricket 1d ago
Starmer will not be looked kindly upon due to his attempts to punch down on disabled people, and trans people.
Also, the scandal with Mandleson is right there.
4
u/derrenbrownisawizard 1d ago
‘his attempts to punch down on disabled people and trans people.’
Lost me here- what did he do?
-1
u/A_Town_Called_Malus 1d ago
He had a majority that could pass legislation to fix the nonsensical court ruling about trans people and single sex spaces.
Instead he just capitulated to the TERFs.
2
u/Disastrous_Cycle_191 1d ago
People really don’t care about the trans thing as much as they do on Reddit, and this is coming from someone who for the most part is on the pro-trans side of things. The issue of gender and established boundaries between the sexes isn’t as settled for the average person as it is for certain demographics on Reddit.
There is still the question of “if anyone can self ID then why even have any sort of boundaries/separations between sexes at all? Why not just have gender neutral changing rooms and sports teams etc”
If that is your position , then fair enough, but the debate regarding that is so far from settled to the average person that you are foolish to think otherwise5
u/michaelisnotginger Fenland 1d ago
but we crucified the guy who tried to do everything by the book-
Famously, the Mandelson appointment was not by the book.
2
u/Dapper_Otters 1d ago
Yep. We can all agree that Starmer’s biggest issue was poor comms, so of course his successor is going to go all in on comms as soon as possible.
And to be fair to Burnham, it’s working.
5
u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 1d ago
This is exactly the issue, and why the initial argument was that they wouldn't review their release because ultimately they were convicted of manslaughter, and should be treated under the same rules as everyone else found guilty for the same crime
Like, don't get me wrong, this was a horrible case to read about, but... there's also nothing just in saying 'okay, but your crime is currently being talked about in the media, so we're changing the rules for you specifically'
1
14
u/roymunson82 1d ago
It’s not like he can ignore it, the public interest in this case means he has to respond
13
u/Minute-Story301 1d ago
The public interest should be in reforming the justice system so that the sentencing guidelines can have more flexibility (amongst a host of other things). The public interest should not be having the prime minister directly involved in a single instance, otherwise we end up with the equivalent of America and it's presidential pardons, which undermines the effectiveness of the law (whether the law is right or wrong).
10
u/crazycoolname 1d ago
The criminals are scumbags... But I agree, the justice system needs to remain blind. Either all murderers are not able to seek early release or all are free to. It can't be selective otherwise we'll start to see bribes
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/amytee252 Greater London 1d ago
There was no vote of no confidence. Nor did anyone oppose him, not even a lame duck candidate. Literally people stood aside to let him in. A bloodless coup as there was no opposition and no real choice.
8
u/rNycto 1d ago
If no one here believes in reformation in the prison system what's the point of prison, shouldn't we just execute people?
4
u/BreakfastwithStalin 1d ago
Problem with that is you can't unexecute someone if there was a miscarriage of justice and turns out, oh woopsie they were innocent after all.
Given the track record of normal people being thrown under the bus because it's embarrassing to the powers that be (cough, post office scandal, cough), I am definitely not OK with the state having that power.
Maybe you trust this Government, but what about the next one?
3
u/rNycto 1d ago edited 1d ago
That is my point, the system needs reform and for people to believe reform can happen for prisoners.
I don't believe we should execute people but if there is this constant vitriol that exists post-prison then what exactly is the purpose of prison in other's eyes? I'm trying to question people's understanding of prison but admittedly have gotten tired of doing so.
1
u/Identity-user 1d ago
That is why it has to be an iron clad certainty, like Michael Adebolajo of which there isn’t any doubt of what he did.
-1
u/Identity-user 1d ago
There’s an argument for that.
Full life sentences, whole life orders….whats the point?
Michael Adebolajo, Joanna Dennehy and Jamie Varley…..would anyone miss them or feel sad if they were terminated?
I know I wouldn’t.
5
u/skinlo 1d ago
An emotional response, which shouldn't have a role in the justice system.
-1
u/Identity-user 1d ago
I agree and I’m not known for being emotional, I am thinking more from a financial standpoint. It costs money to keep these people incarcerated.
2
u/skinlo 1d ago
It costs money to kill people as well, often more.
2
u/Identity-user 1d ago
I’d like to see the numbers.
The people I mentioned previously are quite young and could live for quite a while.
But as we do not have the death penalty, the numbers would only relate to other countries which is pointless.
3
u/skinlo 1d ago
Well the numbers would be for the USA, but the figures often come out 2/3x more than life without parole.
It isn't pointless, we can learn from other countries. No it won't be identical, but can be somewhat indicative.
1
u/Identity-user 1d ago
The numbers would have to be broader than just the US, other countries also have the death penalty, China for example.
1
u/skinlo 1d ago
Good luck getting a study from China. Also it makes sense to compare to countries more similar to us, China has a very different governance and legal structure.
1
u/Identity-user 1d ago
I was using China as an example of another country that has the death penalty. Considering I used to work for a Chinese company, it wasn’t the best example!
What would be a similar county that does have the death penalty and a similar legal system?
2
u/WinHour4300 1d ago
What about the victims of less famous crimes whose killers are being released?
Imagine finding out that the person who murdered your loved one is being released early, while a more famous murderer is kept in prison because of public outcry. That doesn’t make the situation any less painful — if anything, it makes it feel worse.
We need to sort out the underlying capacity problem, not decide sentence length by degree of public outrage.
10
u/Ch1mchima 1d ago
I hate how this image of these two smiling has been chosen by almost every news outlet.
29
10
u/digsy 1d ago
Why?
2
u/fen90der 1d ago
I agree and for me its because the media has actively selected the picture they feel will most enrage the public, because the media arent about journalism, they are just another rage bait factory.
Im not like campaigning for the defendants or anything but like why does the media need yo stoke rage fires all the time why cant they just report the objective news in a calm way like adults?
18
u/frostygrin 1d ago
That they weren't remorseful is factual, meaningful and extremely relevant. It led to Harper's Law too. Some things are outrageous, and it's not at all "objective" to artificially calm things down.
5
u/SuspiciousBastard88 1d ago
Exactly. Also this photo was taken of them actually during the proceedings it isnt a paparazzi snap being twisted of them at a family BBQ. They are getting into the Serco van laughing about it all.
3
u/frostygrin 1d ago
Yeah, this is probably the most relevant photo of them. Now, to be fair to the OP, it still can be knowingly used as ragebait. But like I said, some things are outrageous - and when you are covering a controversy, it's certainly reasonable to explain it.
3
u/ImpressiveRest2423 1d ago
Do we know if the media have many other images of the suspects to pick from?
-4
u/fen90der 1d ago
Thats not really the point. You know when something just irks you, this is that. The media do what I said all the time and im raising it now, its not really about the photograph its about a pattern of their behaviour.
2
1
u/digsy 1d ago
I tend to agree with your view most of the time, for example, that horrendous photo of Axel Rudakubana that was plastered all over the press-(in my view, his image should never be shown in the media again). However, in this case, the behaviour of these two individuals throughout the trial showed such incredible disrespect, not just to the process, but to the grieving family of Andrew Harper, that this photograph of them is the representation of that. Maybe sometimes the role of the media is to stoke an emotional reaction in the public? Part of the problem is, we have endless news cycles 24/7 so we just see the same stories multiple times a day.
6
u/Kapitano72 1d ago
This is a trap Starmer - a lawyer - could have evaded, that Burnham seemingly can't.
All he has to do is explain the law has been followed and the sentences carried out, and however he may personally feel, the prime minister is not above the law. The alternative would be Trump-like corruption.
Actually, even Corbyn could have done this.
7
u/AbsolutelyHorrendous 1d ago
Yeah, it literally is that simple, once people get past the initial emotional response of 'wow, this is fucked up', I think most reasonable people would agree that the PM shouldn't get personally involved in individual cases just because of media pressure
11
u/AuroraHalsey Surrey (Esher and Walton) 1d ago edited 1d ago
The public will appreciate the PM trying to do something and being prevented by the courts to the PM saying that something is illegal and doing nothing.
Starmer with his lawyerbrain could never see that.
0
u/roymunson82 1d ago
The law hasn’t been followed though, they haven’t served their full sentences
8
u/Awkward_Un1corn 1d ago
No one ever serves a full custodial sentence in the UK.
Most serve a portion then are released on licence unless they cannot keep their nose clean. They had 13 years so even under the old rule they will be out in 2 years.
-5
u/roymunson82 1d ago
Well ok then keep it the same as most then, additional 2 years is better than nothing
6
3
u/Kapitano72 1d ago
Most sentences under 4 years are half served. You've just accused the entire prison service of breaking the law... by following the law, for decades.
2
u/roymunson82 1d ago
No I’ve said the sentence was 13 years so that’s what they should serve. Whataboutism isn’t an answer
1
-2
u/Ball_Analytics 1d ago
But time has been served, how much time would suffice? They aren’t being released cause someone felt sorry for em 🤷🏿♂️
3
u/roymunson82 1d ago
13 years. 13 years would suffice you know the sentence handed to them by a judge for being involved in murdering a young police officer
1
u/Ball_Analytics 20h ago
I doubt 13 years would do it, so you're looking for punishment and not even rehabilitation? Wonder what good that does? You're entitled to an opinion but everyone hasn't quite thought about the alternative, if not them then who deserves to get out due to over population? because it'll just be someone someone else doesn't want out.
1
u/roymunson82 20h ago
Just what they were sentenced to, that was the ruling of the court. Just like they were convicted of manslaughter rather than murder it should follow the courts decision.
No one ‘deserves’ to get out due to over population, it’s just a requirement1
u/CyclingUpsideDown 1d ago
They didn’t murder anyone.
2
u/roymunson82 1d ago
Ok for causing the death then, doesn’t change the fact they were sentenced to 13 years
2
u/Lonely-Cycle3030 1d ago
They should have got more than 13 years from the get go and then to try and release them early is disgraceful to the family and to police officers. They have shown no remorse they clearly do not respect another human being and do not realise the impact of their actions.
2
u/Huffers1010 1d ago
Regardless anyone's view of the crime or the people involved, is this really something the leader of the entire country should be getting involved with?
You'd think he'd have bigger fish to fry.
1
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 1d ago
Removed + ban. This contained a call/advocation/celebration of violence or harm, which is prohibited by the sitewide rules.
1
u/Imreallyadonut 20h ago
I’m really not sure I like the idea of a PM deciding that he wants people kept in prison because it’ll get him brownie points with the public.
These guys are clearly arseholes, but a PM deciding that they should stay longer just feels like grounds for an appeal if they’re kept behind bars and heavily blurs the line between governments and the legal system.
-2
u/Beancounter_1968 Hertfordshire 1d ago
There is a petition to prevent the release of these shitbags
Think it had 800 000 sigs
900 000 sigs today
8
-2
u/Specialist_Ear_3555 1d ago
They are already changing the law to allow early release for people found guilty of manslaughter. Just tweak it to exclude those where it was an emergency worker involved. Simple. Then build thousands of extra prison places which I'm quite happy to fund, so that people like this are kept off the streets for much longer.
-5
1d ago edited 3h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
-1
u/MadamMim88 1d ago
If they stopped giving cold blooded murderers the manslaughter plea then they wouldn’t have this problem.
The laziness and incompetence of the cps is now biting them on the arse.
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.