Petition to stop the EARLY RELEASE for PC Harpers killers

Smileless2012

That's a very good point WW.

I agree.

‘of their ilk’ you really have some turns of phrase Silvershadow.

That's a very good point WW.

Casdon

It’s not that simple Smileless2012, because lack of remorse shown at sentencing is not a legal category? You have to differentiate on the basis of difference in the crime committed when you change the sentencing rules, not make an exception because of attitude.

Lack of remorse does seem to be taken into account when someone is being considered for parole - so maybe that is the route to take?

I’m very glad Andy Burnham has taken the bull by the horns in this case. I’d also like to know the origins of these men. If they’ve come over from Ireland, as many of their ilk do, then back they should go at the end of their sentences.

I think Andy Burnham is far more in tune with the public than his predecessor. I’m quietly impressed and he’s only had the job for a month. Let’s see what else he does.

*applied across the board

It’s not that simple Smileless2012, because lack of remorse shown at sentencing is not a legal category? You have to differentiate on the basis of difference in the crime committed when you change the sentencing rules, not make an exception because of attitude.

Smileless2012

I can't see for the family of PC Harper that there are any issues which demand more urgent attention Casdon.

Yes and that’s exactly the point of the rule of law.

Smileless2012

Why not try responding to others politely Tuliptree instead of trying to brow beat them into submission to agree with your point of view.

IMO it not appropriate for the two passengers to be released early and IMO taking the time to look at their case in detail; their total lack of remorse and the way they laughed during the trial would have shown they are not suitable for early release.

If this was not being pushed through, the aforementioned may well have been taken into account. It hasn't been and it should have.

I agree with you Smileless2012, but I also agree that decisions made by the judiciary should be apppued across the board.
My only parting shot is that the judiciary got it very wrong when lenient sentencing was given to those boys who repeatedly raped an underage girl. In this instance one particular case was overruled because of the nature of the crime. So in the case of PC Harper, because he was a police officer and will be perceived by certain circles the young men mixed with as fair game, this should be treated differently. There is no remorse and I imagine the young men will conversely brag about their exploits.
Therefore I think perhaps this case could be seen as a stand alone case to be considered separately.

I can't see for the family of PC Harper that there are any issues which demand more urgent attention Casdon.

Why not try responding to others politely Tuliptree instead of trying to brow beat them into submission to agree with your point of view.

IMO it not appropriate for the two passengers to be released early and IMO taking the time to look at their case in detail; their total lack of remorse and the way they laughed during the trial would have shown they are not suitable for early release.

If this was not being pushed through, the aforementioned may well have been taken into account. It hasn't been and it should have.

That would be true if there were not hundreds of other issues which demand more urgent attention Smileless2012. The first government that can foresee what might be needed two years down the line when they first come into power would be truly exceptional.

It doesn't include anyone with a manslaughter conviction. If it did, the driver of the car would also be included and he isn't. Why not try basing your opinions on facts - it would facilitate a more productive discussion.

Well IMO which I'm entitled too Tuliptree, is it is being rushed though.

The basis for a conviction for manslaughter varies greatly and this wasn't taken into account when it was decided that this early release scheme would include anyone with a manslaughter conviction.

Two years should have been long enough to ensure that anyone with a manslaughter conviction would have their case looked at to see if releasing them early was appropriate.

In the case of PC Harper's killers it isn't.

eazybee

That is exactly what a PM should be doing, responding to public concerns. I don't think he has any idea of the strength of feeling about this particular case, and if these men are released he will be held responsible. Spokesman for NO 10 said yesterday although he was deeply concerned but there was little he could do; today an announcement from him personally saying he was working towards a solution. Shades of Trump.
Perhaps if he spent time in No.10 working with his Civil Servants instead of doing yet another self promotion tour he might get something done.

Honestly eazybee. Of course he's aware of the strength of feelings - that's why it's such a hard decision and why he's to be commended for not pandering to populism bt us working with everyone concerned at trying to come up with a lawful solution. And your idea that his tour means he's not involved with may other things simultaneously is frankly risible. You really don't seem to have the first idea of what being a PM means. Was it you that thought he would be on holiday in the same way as you or me? As for Shades of Trump - ridiculous. If you want to see what Trumpism looks like in the US "justice" system just look up the arrest of the man who put his hand in the Reflecting Pool. Do you really not understand why the rule of law matters?

eazybee

That is exactly what a PM should be doing, responding to public concerns. I don't think he has any idea of the strength of feeling about this particular case, and if these men are released he will be held responsible. Spokesman for NO 10 said yesterday although he was deeply concerned but there was little he could do; today an announcement from him personally saying he was working towards a solution. Shades of Trump.
Perhaps if he spent time in No.10 working with his Civil Servants instead of doing yet another self promotion tour he might get something done.

A PM should only commit to any action for one person after all the consequences of that action have been examined and risk assessed for others who are in the same position. It is very, very simple to understand why that is necessary.

Whitewavemark2

Actually thinking about this issue, it would be wrong for Burnham to interfere. In the U.K. politics and the judiciary is separate to ensure too much power is not taken by the government.

So imo Burnham can’t make this decision.

I agree this but like many others am conflicted.
Thing is we only need to look at the US and the interference by Trump with the judiciary to see how this is not a good idea.
But the repeated footage of those young man smirking and laughing after being convicted of murder sticks in my throat.
I doubt very much there is any remorse, and when they return to their homes it is likely they will brag about killing a cop.
Is horrible but at the same time I appreciate that the judiciary should be permitted to make what they consider to be the right decision for all involved.

That is exactly what a PM should be doing, responding to public concerns. I don't think he has any idea of the strength of feeling about this particular case, and if these men are released he will be held responsible. Spokesman for NO 10 said yesterday although he was deeply concerned but there was little he could do; today an announcement from him personally saying he was working towards a solution. Shades of Trump.
Perhaps if he spent time in No.10 working with his Civil Servants instead of doing yet another self promotion tour he might get something done.

Sunshinegirls

You can't keep blaming the Torys Labours been in charge for 2 years they don't have to release these killers it's their choice.

It’s a very good job that you aren’t the PM if you would make decisions purely on the basis of public outcry without making judgments about every other person who is affected by your decision and the consequences of treating them differently. .

Sunshinegirls

You can't keep blaming the Torys Labours been in charge for 2 years they don't have to release these killers it's their choice.

Well, actually it isn’t the governments choice, as far as I understand. The judiciary are the overseers of such decisions, not the government

As I said - separation of state.

But I guess there is always a chance that the judiciary will look at the issue and come to some sort of accommodation?

Sunshinegirls

You can't keep blaming the Torys Labours been in charge for 2 years they don't have to release these killers it's their choice.

But it’s an incredibly complex decision to make. It has to be lawful and fair to everyone - you know the statue of justice on top of the Old Bailey. Instead of constantly criticising the government over this, we should be grateful it’s not jumping into an easy populist solution but that they want to make a lawful decision. The problem is that unless you really understand what society is like when the rule of law is discarded then you’re talking out of your hat. )Generic you btw - the French would say ‘on’ and the Germans ‘man’)

You can't keep blaming the Torys Labours been in charge for 2 years they don't have to release these killers it's their choice.

Actually thinking about this issue, it would be wrong for Burnham to interfere. In the U.K. politics and the judiciary is separate to ensure too much power is not taken by the government.

So imo Burnham can’t make this decision.

I’m not sure how many people that would mean being retained in prison.

The idea of early release is to free up space I thought.

This whole debacle is as a result of the Tories complete incompetence. When Labour took over there were only 100 spaces left.

No 10 told it can’t be done.

I think the only possible way would be to categorise the whole of that group as “not for early release”?