It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


BBC News - Whole life terms for police killers - home secretary

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:31 AM

BBC News - Whole life terms for police killers - home secretary

Criminals who kill police officers will face minimum whole life sentences, Home Secretary Theresa May is to announce.

The current minimum sentence for a police murder is 30 years.

Mrs May will announce that the government is to propose that the minimum term should be increased to life without parole.

"There is no hierarchy when it comes to victims of murder, however police officers risk their lives on a daily basis confronting danger on behalf of others.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:31 AM
So what does ATS make of this?

Personally I think every crime should be judged accordingly, simple as that really since it is the way law and punishment is supposed to be done in the UK.

Also I might add this is obviously not something the public have dreamed up since the kind of crimes the public think the punishment is too lenient for is definitely NOT cop killing.

The punishment should fit the crime, this I agree with. We the British public have had our opinions snuffed on things like this in the past... child murder, rape etc.

So I'm not sure how to feel about this to be honest. Pre-judgement before the courtroom ever met?
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:42 AM
I resent the implication.

If a police officer opts to engage in a career that they know is dangerous, and they put themselves in a position of power and authority, and they then fail to meet the standards imposed on them, and people claim "But theyre humans after all." then if this is to be accepted, and it is always put forward as being so, then they should be exempt from being treated as anything special, or above the law.

Sure, if someone attacks an officer (any public officer) they should certainly be put away.

But if any law officer breaks the law, and are found guilty either by omission of the truth, or neglect of duty, or any thing that causes the death of a civilian, then they should also face severe consequences.

They shouldn't get it both ways.

Frail and human when they break and so we'll let them off with a warning for killing that guy they didn't know had a heart condition as they bashed his face in with batons and tazed him 99 times for jay walking..

Or superhumans that never do wrong, and if a citizen even sneezes near them, gets bailed up for assault.

they want to be the poor little frail human when they accidentally bash a granny and shoot her dog.. but the saviours of society who mend little kittens paws and give puppies to homeless people.

As you say OP, each crime on it's own basis.

If we make them untouchable, then even when they break the law and get the resulting citizens wrath, then we allow them to be brutes and a gang.

If they can't do the job properly, don't. No excuses. Only then will I accept that there are laws designed to imprison you for life if you assault one. But we'll never see that...

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 02:59 AM
Why is the life of a policeman intrinsically worth more than any one elses?

That's what I find offensive. And that's what this law assumes.


posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:03 AM
Yet a child killer can get just a few years.

I don't think that a cops life should be placed above anyone else. Especially innocent young ones.

Might as well bring back the death penalty if you're going to to lock them up till they die. Would save a lot of money.


posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:07 AM
What about firemen, ambulance drivers, emergency rescue crew. Don't all these people put their life on the line everyday? Looks like May is just trying to get back the lost support of the police in this government.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:09 AM
When the death sentence/hanging for the crime of murder was abolished in the 1960's, the trade off was whole life terms for murderer. That's how abolition was sold at the time, so I'm told anyway. Slowly that seems to have changed.

You have to ask yourself whether murderers can be rehabiitated in prison, whether any can ever be made fit for release back into their communities, whether any should even be allowed parole.

But if it is possible to rehabilitate murderers, surely the best test for release is the character, demeanour of the convicted person and their likelihood of re-offending, rather than the occupation of the person they killed ? And that would be for the prison authorities, the parole board to decide ... not a politician far away Londres who is tub thumping for votes.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:17 AM
Totally unacceptable.

So if I get murdered that's OK, he gets 15 years, paroled after 7 on good behaviour...but if he kills one of the Old Bill it's life without parole?!!

Yeah, right...

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:25 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
What about firemen, ambulance drivers, emergency rescue crew.

Well that would be the start of the slippery slope, wouldnt it?

If police were recognised as a special group, then others would also lobby to get put into that special group. You could be certain that politicians themselves would pass legislation to have themselves put into that special group.

And in the end, all lives are equal, but some lives are more equal than others.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:31 AM
But you can murder, dismember and dump part of the body in a lake and not tell anyone where the rest is and get a 20 year sentence...which they called life.

Our judicial system is a joke, a policemans life is worth no more than yours or mine.

The sentence should reflect the crime. For example if a policeman is punched and killed, it should deserve a lesser sentence than someone like the person i described above. Murdering someone, and chopping them up is far worse in my opinion, yet he will be released after a maximum of 20 years...and at 50 he probably wont die in prison.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 03:59 AM
one rule for them, and another for us. all this while continually seeing instances of police abuses of power and brutality. it's disgusting and wrong and yet another policy that i'm sure the majority won't agree with.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 04:07 AM
At least a police man or woman can defend themselves if need be.
Why doesn't the Home Secretary decree life sentences for child groomers, child molesters, child killers, gangs that abuse hundreds of little and young THAT would make sense! But these monstors are rewarded with play stations and gyms in prison and a shortened cushy sentence.
That's the problem with government........always protecting people who can look after themselves. There is no votes in taking care of little vulnerable girls and boys who have probably already been abandonded by their parents.

Police men and women are big strong and often armed! By all means impose a life sentence on anyone who hurts them BUT WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?

Get your priorities RIGHT Home Secretary!!!!

edit on 15-5-2013 by Elliot because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:14 AM
I think for any murdered in the UK the courts should have the right to hand down a whole life sentence, in other words “stay in jail until you die”

This should be the same regardless if you kill the Queen, PM, Police officer or even the homeless man down the street all human life is of equal value regardless of social status. As such I believe that anyone who takes a life should be punished by having to spend the rest of their days behind bars in a small cell without any of the luxuries they are currently provided in the taxpayer funded holiday camps we call “prisons”

The Criminal Justice System in the UK just now is a joke, if I had my way I would start building huge American style super-max prisons and make sentencing for any violent crime much more severe. This would create jobs and make our streets safer.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:40 AM
Not saying we should encourage people to shoot police but ...

Surely, if a person attempts a robbery and ends up in a fire fight with the police that's understandable in comparison to the same robber randomly shooting a member of the public for fun and then peacefully surrendering?

I haven't looked into the changes enough, but I think hurting innocent people who aren't threatening you should always be seen as a worse act.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:02 AM
Hi guys and gals

I'm impressed with the opinions so far

I suppose that the excuse would be people like that idiot Dale Cregan who killed two officers.

Regardless though we live in a society where the punishment is supposed to fit the crime and like many of your thoughts on this, I agree with the fact that this is not the case.

Now if the case is :
If you go out and have the intent and means to kill officers and succeed you will be jailed indefinitely, you will never breath free air again.

How does that make sense?
It should NOT be based on the fact you killed a cop but the facts and nature of the crime. Heck I need to look into this because this is a breach of common law I think, your peers AKA a jury and a judge should be the ones to question and then pass sentence not government, they should not have a say in the matter.

I can think of easily ten cases where the public AND most likely the justice system would have rathered the criminals brought to justice to have the same punishment as what cop killers will now get. Sick stuff

Do one Mrs May... it's not the first time you've attempted to ignore the laws and rights of this land.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:18 AM
reply to post by RAY1990

While I welcome the increase in sentences for those who kill police officers, I rather think that the entire sentencing proceedure for murder in this country ought to be toughened up. No one who kills a person, in cold blood, without provocation or any defense of the self, or others, involved, should EVER walk amongst the population again.

I realise that taking the hardline on this means that prisons would become rather over crowded, but that is not a good enough reason to allow these people the liberty they squandered by thier actions. I agree that police officers, in the main, do what they do so that others do not have to, placing themselves in danger to ensure the saftey of the populus, from criminal elements bent on harming people either directly or indirectly. I agree that the law ought to reflect that, when dealing with those who kill the police.

But I think that murder sentences are too damned light in this country as a whole, and should be re-thought with a more absolute, black and white approach. Obviously killing in self defense should never even cause a day in jail, and preferably not even an arrest. Killing by accident, ought to carry a sentence, but not a whole life one. But choosing to kill in the coldest of blood, like that savage Dale Cregan, should never see the sky again, no matter who the target of thier wanton aggression and hatred might be.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:47 AM
reply to post by TrueBrit

Totally agreed, if you choose to take a life you have choose to give up yours also.

That in my opinion should count for every person in the UK and not just reserved for police, also murder as a whole cannot simply be defined, just too many possiblilities and circumstances involving murder including cases involving police fatalities.

I agree with you though the punishment for murder is very lenient in this country, 1st degree murder if proven should be life and mean life regardless of who died, also punishment fitting enough for the crime does need to be looked at and changed in this country. That includes how we should treat criminals who are incarcerated also.

More jails more jobs,create better equipped jails and make the in-mates work too. They chose to be outcasts with their actions so give them the basics to survive and work for anything else.

Went a bit off topic
So yeah, it should be the same law for everyone period.

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by RAY1990

I agree Ray. Life is life, whether that life happens to be a Policeman or a Dustman.

If someone deliberately murders either one, the consequences ought to be the same regardless.

Not only does this legislation insinuate the life of someone who's work happens to be within the Police is more valuable than anyone else's, but more to the point, it insinuates the life of anyone else is less valuable...on the surface, both propositions seems to be the same, but they're not.

Any life is valuable, regardless of their 'economic' potential or whether they do a particular start saying one life has more intrinsic value over another is a very dangerous path to tread in my opinion.

Is the life of Policeman or policewoman more valuable than the life of an innocent child, several innocent children? No it isn't, and there ought not to be any legislation that attempts to claim that it is.

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 04:15 PM
Wake up, you don't realize the safety of the police is the top priority. I mean these guys go around with bullet proof tactical gear and auto weapons while the rest of the brits get to carry a walking stick.

The hole you guys dug for yourself is worse than here. I understand why my ancestors kicked your government out of this country.

It sucks that now they are becoming united so the USA can go the way of England.

What about a death sentence for all child killers no questions, better yet, a death sentence for remote control plane operators that kill innocent kids in pakistan
edit on 16-5-2013 by LastStarfighter because: (no reason given)


log in