Is your life worth less....

[c1973]

Don't forget while you're building it up that the pension is paid for by an contribution from gross salary of somewhere about 15%; it's not the freebie the Daily Wail would have you believe. Add that to the recent changes in terms and conditions that amounted to a pay & pension cut, restrictions on their private lives, shift patterns & the very real risk of injury and I'd say it is a pretty poor remuneration for the job they do and the expectations placed upon them.

Try this one;

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...ns-demand-pay-rise-for-all-staff-9227580.html

£50,000 a year for driving a tube train; where do I sign up?

And you reckon coppers are overpaid?

Where did I say they are overpaid?

Would 15% not be made up of avc' s? I thought employees paid in around 5% as standard. I may be wrong though.

 

[c1973]

Apologies, I was working on the starting wage outside London (from a few years ago - Don't ask how I know this ). It still amounts to an average wage for working shifts, most weekends and dealing with all the things we wouldn't want to deal with. I don't begrudge a Police Officer a single penny of that wage.

I wouldn't begrudge them a penny of it either, just think it's a reasonable pay and (getting back on track) that their life is no more valuable than yours or mine.

 

[G_Mulligan]

I don't think it is a case of their lives being more valuable but more protecting their own. They do put themselves in harms way and knowing that murdering a police officer in order to escape arrest meaning a whole life term instead of 13-14 years may make the Police more untouchable and the criminals think twice. Obviously that means the criminals have to think logically and care about their own lives but it may help in some circumstances.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I haven't read all 5 pages so apologies if someone has raised this point. I don't think this should be looked at as the police being raised above normal people or them being more deserving. This is a symbolic issue. The police exist to defend the rights of people, maintain law and order etc. An attack on the police is an attack on the state, not just an attack on an individual. That is why these types of separate laws are brought in.

Personally I don't agree with this but I see where they are coming from.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

There's something that says to me that as the police represent the state - and maintain law and order on our behalf - and we put our trust and faith in them to do so - then a crime against a police officer is a crime against the state, and hence a crime against each and every one of us. Without law and order being maintained we are all, each and every one of us, at greater risk of harm when going about our day to day business. Whilst the policeman or woman is indeed, when naked, just an individual like you or I, when on duty or in uniform they are not at all the same as us. And for that reason acts of violence against the police must be viewed and dealt with differently

Edit Note - LT just beat me to it

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Swingsit - Great minds etc........

 

[Sweep]

I believe the thinking behind a whole life tariff for the murder of a police officer is to deter criminals from going out armed in the first place and if they did, don't resist arrest when you are caught. In other words to try to protect the police and maintain the policy of the vast majority of the police being unarmed.
I don't believe that anyone's life is worth more or less than another. Life should mean life without parole. Recent history is littered with innocent people murdered by previously convicted murderers following release. For me, it is about the deterrent and the protection of the law abiding public over the rehabilitation of the criminal. The murdered get no second chances.
In my view, this evil man should not be released, because, as I understand it, the policemen he murdered are still dead.

 

[woody69]

I believe the thinking behind a whole life tariff for the murder of a police officer is to deter criminals from going out armed in the first place and if they did, don't resist arrest when you are caught. In other words to try to protect the police and maintain the policy of the vast majority of the police being unarmed.
I don't believe that anyone's life is worth more or less than another. Life should mean life without parole. Recent history is littered with innocent people murdered by previously convicted murderers following release. For me, it is about the deterrent and the protection of the law abiding public over the rehabilitation of the criminal. The murdered get no second chances.
In my view, this evil man should not be released, because, as I understand it, the policemen he murdered are still dead.

We have "whole life terms" for certain criminals that have committed crimes that are considered so heinous they do not deserve a chance to rehabilitate themselves, but it is a slippery slope to apply that as a blanket punishment to all people convicted of murder. Murder is rarely black and white in terms of person A killed person B therefore Person A is guilty and should be punished. If we start applying whole life terms to all convicted murderers they will come impossible to manage within prison as they simply will have nothing to lose. The cost for these prisoners will also increase considerably and unfortunately a lot of the time this has to be a factor.

 

[bladeplayer]

@OP I see your point an no persons life is more valuable than anyone else's , but i also don't think its meant that way ..

Is it not seen more as a deterrent for criminals to be armed or shoot / knife the police tho , the police job is to be in the real bad places , they are the protecting force and as there is no respect for them from criminals there has to be a greater fear of stronger reprisal against those who might attack them ..

Im not really explaining what i mean clearly but i hope ya get the gist ..

 

[Sweep]

We have "whole life terms" for certain criminals that have committed crimes that are considered so heinous they do not deserve a chance to rehabilitate themselves, but it is a slippery slope to apply that as a blanket punishment to all people convicted of murder. Murder is rarely black and white in terms of person A killed person B therefore Person A is guilty and should be punished. If we start applying whole life terms to all convicted murderers they will come impossible to manage within prison as they simply will have nothing to lose. The cost for these prisoners will also increase considerably and unfortunately a lot of the time this has to be a factor.

On the contrary. We have been on a slippery slope by not applying whole life terms for murder.
Sadly murder is always black and white for the victim.

 

[c1973]

On the contrary. We have been on a slippery slope by not applying whole life terms for murder.
Sadly murder is always black and white for the victim.

Is it though?
What if you or I went out and killed someone who murdered a member of our family? No leniency to be shown there?

 

[woody69]

On the contrary. We have been on a slippery slope by not applying whole life terms for murder.
Sadly murder is always black and white for the victim.

Is it? So what about a man who goes out and murders a person he knows has been abusing his child? Or a woman who ends up killing her abusive partner? Or a husband who smothers his terminally ill wife? Do they all deserve whole-life imprisonment?

 

[Blue in Munich]

Where did I say they are overpaid?

That's the inference I drew from this post;

Indeed. They collect a decent wage from a very secure job for that though, your average civilian doesn't.

And the inference I drew from this one;

I reckon plenty of people would think £26K is a decent wage, make sergeant and you could be on around £40K. Remember to figure (the very lucrative) pension into their earnings as well.

Source : http://www.prospects.ac.uk/police_officer_salary.htm

Given the skill set expected, I'd suggest it is anything but a decent wage. As for it being secure it is anything but these days. Get injured in the line of duty and you used to be able to do a back room job to see out your time. Now they've all been civilianised if you pick up a serious injury chances are you are on your bike.

Would 15% not be made up of avc' s? I thought employees paid in around 5% as standard. I may be wrong though.

No, the 15% is calculated on the gross salary, so it is on top of income tax, national insurance, etc. I may have misinterpreted your comments on the previous bits but I can guarantee you that you are completely wrong on this part.

 

[Sweep]

Is it though?
What if you or I went out and killed someone who murdered a member of our family? No leniency to be shown there?

Hard to do if the person who murdered a member of our family was inside for life. Much more likely if he was let out after 7 years. In any case We probably wouldn't be done for murder.
So, if it's ok for us to kill a person who murdered a member of our family, are you saying you agree with an eye for an eye or not? If it was a member of your family the murderer dies, but not for others?
I am not asking for an eye for an eye. I am advocating a whole life sentence to protect the public and as a major deterrent. Just recently Alice Gross was it seems murdered by a convicted murderer who served 7 years. Do you really want to argue your point to her parents?

 

[NST]

Sorry but what exactly is it I have said that causes that reaction ?

What happens when you give someone the death sentence and they are later found out to be innocent

One innocent person wrongly being killed by deaths sentence is one too many and exactly why we don't need death sentence in this country.

 

[Sweep]

Is it? So what about a man who goes out and murders a person he knows has been abusing his child? Or a woman who ends up killing her abusive partner? Or a husband who smothers his terminally ill wife? Do they all deserve whole-life imprisonment?

Please see my reply to c1973 above.
None would probably end up being charged with murder and mercy killing is an all together different subject.
I don't like seeing people get punished either. I always find myself wishing none of it had ever happened. But a big part of this is deterrent and protection and you cannot go on hiding behind borderline cases and use them as an argument for not dealing strongly with cold blooded murder. The only thing that comes out of that is more cold blooded murder and less regard for human life. The subject raised by the OP was in regard to a cold blooded murder of 3 police officers.

 

[c1973]

Hard to do if the person who murdered a member of our family was inside for life. Much more likely if he was let out after 7 years. In any case We probably wouldn't be done for murder.
So, if it's ok for us to kill a person who murdered a member of our family, are you saying you agree with an eye for an eye or not? If it was a member of your family the murderer dies, but not for others?
I am not asking for an eye for an eye. I am advocating a whole life sentence to protect the public and as a major deterrent. Just recently Alice Gross was it seems murdered by a convicted murderer who served 7 years. Do you really want to argue your point to her parents?[/QUOTE]

Where did I say it's ok to kill anyone?

Argue what point with her parents? Wind yer neck in a bit.


I've asked a question about what people think about the forthcoming change in the law and whether they think it means their life's are viewed as being worth less than a police officers?

Where have I said anything about Alice Gross?

I merely asked you (in response to your post) if murder was as black and white as you stated (giving a possible scenario that might suggest it's not, as did another poster) something you failed to answer despite all that waffle above btw.

 

[Sweep]

Hard to do if the person who murdered a member of our family was inside for life. Much more likely if he was let out after 7 years. In any case We probably wouldn't be done for murder.
So, if it's ok for us to kill a person who murdered a member of our family, are you saying you agree with an eye for an eye or not? If it was a member of your family the murderer dies, but not for others?
I am not asking for an eye for an eye. I am advocating a whole life sentence to protect the public and as a major deterrent. Just recently Alice Gross was it seems murdered by a convicted murderer who served 7 years. Do you really want to argue your point to her parents?[/QUOTE]

Where did I say it's ok to kill anyone?

Argue what point with her parents? Wind yer neck in a bit.


I've asked a question about what people think about the forthcoming change in the law and whether they think it means their life's are viewed as being worth less than a police officers?

Where have I said anything about Alice Gross?

I merely asked you (in response to your post) if murder was as black and white as you stated (giving a possible scenario that might suggest it's not, as did another poster) something you failed to answer despite all that waffle above btw.

I am sorry that you seem to be getting a little upset. That was not my intention.
At the risk of this becoming a " you said, I said" debate, I didn't say you said it was OK to kill anyone. One of the good things about forums are that stuff is written down. You can check.
You didn't mention Alice Gross, I did. My point about Alice Gross is clear enough. It seems she was murdered by a man who was released from prison after committing murder. This is not unique, because we let murderers out, often after 7 years. If he had not been released, she would have been alive today.
I think I was pretty clear in my answer. Murder is not always black & white, but the law allows for that. In my view cold blooded murder, police officer or not, should carry a full life tariff. I have answered the question you raised in your OP in my first post.
For future reference, this is a forum. You can't expect everyone to agree with you and when they don't agree with you, you can't just dismiss their opinions as waffle and tell them to "wind yer neck in". Others are entitled to their opinions just as much as you are.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Eye for an eye is not the answer. American justice has proven that. As for mercy killings, especially for the terminally ill that's a different debate and that debate is ongoing. As for a retribution killing (for someone abusing someones kid as per the example) that's murder. It's up to the authorities to deal with that and investigate and punish appropriately