Justice ?

[Von Smallhausen]

David Bieber, who killed Pc Ian Broadhurst in cold blood in 2003 and shot two of his colleagues has won an appeal to have his sentence reduced from a whole life term to a minimum of 37 years.

Personally ? I am sickened by it. To murder a police officer while he pleaded for his life after being shot sickens me to to the core and in my world the bastard would have swung from a rope and keyboard aside, I would have pulled the lever myself.

Although 37 years is a long time it still leaves the possibility that he may have liberty at some point and that is something I can never accept.

You can shoot a police officer dead, shoot two others then argue that a whole life term is contravening article 3 of the Human Rights Act on degrading and inhuman punishment ? I despair.

I think Ian Broadhurst will be spinning in his grave and Pcs' Neil Roper and James Banks will feel subtantially more sickened than I am.

This is one of many decisions that are really testing my committment to the job and why I am looking to get out and change career.

BBC News. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7521057.stm)

[leowyatt]

Von the only solution is a bullet to the back of the head. Why should we keep that scumbag alive? Waste of money and resources.

[loki]

It just shows how screwed the justice system is. Anyoen who committed such a terrible crime should be punished and be made to repay his debt to society. Imprisoning for life or taking it one step further, capital punishment does nothing to redress the balance.

Out of interest what job do you do Von ?

[Chuckles]

Von the only solution is a bullet to the back of the head. Why should we keep that scumbag alive? Waste of money and resources.

Because society has no more right to end human life than criminals.

[PvtPyle]

Why is shooting a copper while he pleaded for his life any different to shooting anybody else Von? You might be familiar with the case of PC Patrick Dunne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/20/ukguns.rosiecowan) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/20/ukguns.rosiecowan) I am friends with one of his nephews and I know he feels that his uncle's murderer should have been tried and convicted the same way as anyone else. As a police officer, he knew that there were certain risks that he'd have to routinely undertake whilst performing his duties...

[leowyatt]

Because society has no more right to end human life than criminals.

sorry his right to life was forfeit when he murdered that other person.

[Von Smallhausen]

Out of interest what job do you do Von ?

Copper.

[iCraig]

sorry his right to life was forfeit when he murdered that other person.

Personally, I still don't agree with capital punishment. I can totally see why people call for it in cases such as this. When a cold blooded killer takes a life on purpose, they should have the same done back. However, I'm glad it doesn't get done. Not because the guy doesn't deserve it, but I don't trust anybody, including the state, to have the power to legally end lives at their judgement. It's playing God and nobody should be given the ability to end life. Some people like David Bieber take the ability, and as so, should be removed from society, but not killed in return IMO. I'd like to think society is better than that. :)

[leowyatt]

so, should be removed from society, but not killed in return IMO

What do we do with them then?? :huh: medical testing?

[Chuckles]

What do we do with them then?? :huh: medical testing?

Removing their liberty by locking them in prison until they either are reformed (after an appropriate period of punishment) or die has always suited me.

[Desmo]

Who on earth makes these decisions? I wouldn't want to take the guys life, but he should certainly never be able to walk the streets a free man again in my opinion.

[Mark]

sorry his right to life was forfeit when he murdered that other person.
Are you sure? That smacks to me of the sort of eye for an eye revenge killing that gangs perpetrate on each other. There are valid reasons for killing another, but revenge killing isn't one of them.

As for the original case, I don't know all the circumstances and as such rely on those who do to make the right decision - and that doesn't necessarily mean the popular decision. All too often though it seems they are unable or incapable of doing that.

[leowyatt]

Removing their liberty by locking them in prison until they either are reformed (after an appropriate period of punishment) or die has always suited me.

reformed?? He shot a police officer begging for his life!!!

[leowyatt]

Are you sure? That smacks to me of the sort of eye for an eye revenge killing that gangs perpetrate on each other. There are valid reasons for killing another, but revenge killing isn't one of them.

Yes Mark I'm perfectly sure. I think society is now too soft. Where is the real deterrant for what he did? Yes he'll be in prison for the next 37 years, boohoo, his life goes on. What about the police officer's family? I tell you what if someone murdered a family member or friend I'd want the bastard who did it in the ground, by my hand or someone else's I couldn't care who.

[Von Smallhausen]

David Bieber was also wanted by the authorities in Florida for conspiracy to murder if I remember rightly.

We shouldn't generalise but David Bieber is not a reformable character. I am all for people's rights but the law abiding citizen should always have those rights over the criminal of Bieber's magnitude.

[iCraig]

reformed?? He shot a police officer begging for his life!!!

It is awful and difficult to ever imagine he could be let "free" again.

It's also the liberal in me that says, "Doesn't everybody deserve the opportunity to reform?"

However I don't think many people could pull that type of turn around. People don't change to that degree, you are who you are ultimately. If you can be evil enough to brutally kill somebody begging for their life, you have got to have a very dark shade of evil running through your very core. Could somebody change that? :confused:

[iCraig]

Yes Mark I'm perfectly sure. I think society is now too soft. Where is the real deterrant for what he did? Yes he'll be in prison for the next 37 years, boohoo, his life goes on. What about the police officer's family? I tell you what if someone murdered a family member or friend I'd want the bastard who did it in the ground, by my hand or someone else's I couldn't care who.

Does his life go on though? He's alive yes, but he's not free like you and I. Even if he's on a cushy wing of prison, he'll still be a million miles away from true freedom that we have each and every day.

[leowyatt]

Does his life go on though? He's alive yes, but he's not free like you and I. Even if he's on a cushy wing of prison, he'll still be a million miles away from true freedom that we have each and every day.

Yes his life goes on, it may not be to the same standard as you or me but he is still alive. If he gets his sentence reduced to 37 does he have the possibility or parole? If so he could be out sooner than that.

I personally think it all comes down to what people deem the value or a human life.

[Rich_L]

You can shoot a police officer dead, shoot two others then argue that a whole life term is contravening article 3 of the Human Rights Act on degrading and inhuman punishment ? I despair. I would just say that the HRA argument was actually rejected, the reduction was on the basis of the facts of the case alone.

It's a weird one really, 37 years minimum is a bloody long time, and although there's a chance of release the guy will be 75 years old (if he survives that long) even if he is deemed safe to return to the community. I don't quite get the rationale though, what sort of life will this guy lead in 'normal' society having been institutionalised for that period of time - a distinctly miserable and isolated one I would imagine which begs the question what is the point in even letting him out.

[Chuckles]

reformed?? He shot a police officer begging for his life!!!

Regardless of his actions now, you can't possibly know whether 40 years down the line he could possibly be reformed or not.

[iCraig]

Yeah but his life doesn't go on the way it was before, he has basic living and a few luxuries (which arguably shouldn't be there) and to know he's appealing to get out shows that he wants out. Good. Not because he should come out sooner, but I'm glad he wants out asap. That's the concept of prison working, he's suffering. So, it does frustrate me to see him win that appeal. Why do we bother? We sentence him to punish him and protect from society, and the minute we know the punishment is hitting him, we go easy on him. I mean, what's changed? Has the crime changed? Is the dead officer alive again? No. It's all still the same, so his sentence shouldn't bloody change either. :\

[Chuckles]

I personally think it all comes down to what people deem the value or a human life.

Indeed. And those who value human life aren't generally part of the hang em and flog em brigade cheering outside the execution chambers when the buttons are pressed.

[Von Smallhausen]

Why is shooting a copper while he pleaded for his life any different to shooting anybody else Von? You might be familiar with the case of PC Patrick Dunne (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/20/ukguns.rosiecowan) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/20/ukguns.rosiecowan) I am friends with one of his nephews and I know he feels that his uncle's murderer should have been tried and convicted the same way as anyone else. As a police officer, he knew that there were certain risks that he'd have to routinely undertake whilst performing his duties...

It is the case that I am highlighting.

Murder is not as black and white as some think. They should always be judged on the facts, pre-meditation, lack of etc.

For a case such as Bieber it is without doubt cold blooded and I believe he should have paid with his life. I also think the same of Patrick Dunne's killer.

[Von Smallhausen]

I would just say that the HRA argument was actually rejected, the reduction was on the basis of the facts of the case alone.


I know it was rejected Rich but to even try to use it leaves a bad tase.

[TinkerBell]

I can see both sides, in some ways I do think that people who can do that should be killed for their actions as it is unacceptable behaviour, but then on the other hand I agree with Craig that people shouldn't be given the role of God, that is just as bad as the guy who killed people. I am still not completely decided on what should happen with regards to the punishment for this (i.e death or lifetime sentence)

There is one thing I know for sure, which is that people who can do that should NOT be able to reduce their life sentence even though 37 years is a long time, he was given a life sentence for a reason, he should have to stick to it.

[Chuckles]

yeah, they just tend to be the friends and relatives of those murdered in cold blood. Probably changes your perception a little.

Which is exactly the reason relatives etc are not involved in anything to do with the justice process, as they lose sense of logic and judgement which is what a sentence should be determined on.

[loki]

I am in no position to judge but how effective is the current prison system at punishing and rehabilitating a criminal. Of course 37 years is a long time and the question of his liberty has been brought into question. But by the same token, he has the abillity to sit there day in day out being fed and further his education should he choose to.

Om not in favour of people being locked up or punished to satisfy the vengence of society but prison should be tougher on the convicted than what it is at present

[Chuckles]

There is one thing I know for sure, which is that people who can do that should NOT be able to reduce their life sentence even though 37 years is a long time, he was given a life sentence for a reason, he should have to stick to it.

Are there any circumstances in which peoples sentences should be either reduced or increased?

[Mark]

I think society is now too soft.
You won't get any disagreement from me on that. People come up with stupid ideas like banning the term 'black hole' just because it might insult one or two dark-skinned people. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks that is a sound idea really needs to get a grip. The same goes for the legal system but the problem there is often simply that there's either no scope or no room to accomplish anything better. Personally I'd like to see more Boot Camp style punishments and I don't give a toss if some namby pamby do-gooder thinks they're demeaning or too harsh.

Again and again we hear it's not about punishment, it's about reform.
I suspect you and I agree here. That's clearly a fallacy. The only time prison can legitimately be about reform is if the inmate wants to reform. You can encourage and attempt to persuade but there is simply no way currently known to force someone to reform against their will. Hardened criminals the likes of Bieber simply have no interest in reform, so for them it's about control and nothing more.

There is no respect for life anymore.
Agreed, and it is correct to attack the killer for that, but what does it say about our own respect for life (all life - not just that of the innocent party) if we appear so eager to end the killer's?

[Rich_L]

I know it was rejected Rich but to even try to use it leaves a bad tase. True, but as I'm sure you know that's how these things get tested, if it wasn't his it would have been someone elses - as a 'silver lining' there's now a criminal CoA precedent endorsing irreducible sentences, for example.

There is one thing I know for sure, which is that people who can do that should NOT be able to reduce their life sentence even though 37 years is a long time, he was given a life sentence for a reason, he should have to stick to it. Can't agree with that, any decision given by a court at the first instance should have oversight in the form of appealing the decision. I think as well because only the news-worthy reductions in sentences tend to make the news the public perception is slightly distorted, it is never really reported when a first instance sentence is refused permission to appeal or the appeal is dismissed.

[leowyatt]

Are there any circumstances in which peoples sentences should be either reduced or increased?

it depends entirely on the specific situation. For his case I don't see what possible reason he has validly try and reduce his.

[TinkerBell]

Are there any circumstances in which peoples sentences should be either reduced or increased?

If there is proof that the judgement was wrong, and therefore the person sentenced was wrongly sentenced in some way. But on the whole sentences should be kept as they are.

[Chuckles]

If there is proof that the judgement was wrong, and therefore the person sentenced was wrongly sentenced in some way.

But that's exactly what has happened. An appeal court (which is higher than the one that made the original judgement) has decided that the judgement was wrong.

[TinkerBell]

That isn't how I see it though, by proof I mean some evidence showing that he didn't do the thing he was sentenced for, which in this case he did so shouldn't have a change in his sentence.

[Rich_L]

If there is proof that the judgement was wrong, and therefore the person sentenced was wrongly sentenced in some way. But on the whole sentences should be kept as they are. And as a whole, they are.

Stats from CoA (http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/coareview2006-7.pdf)

For example, in 2006/07, there were 5,176 applications to appeal the sentence, 2,131 of which progressed to a hearing, of which 72% (1,534) succeeded, so approximately 30% of applications result in a successful appeal.

Then if you look at sentencing trends (http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/sentencing-stats2006.pdf)

In 2006, the total number of people sentenced was 1,420,600, of which custodial sentences formed 96,000.

Assuming that custodial sentences are the only ones appealed, approx 5% of custodial sentences are appealed, of which 1.5% are successful.

Interesting statistics really, I wonder what the public perception of the percentage of successful criminal appeals would be :)

[Chuckles]

That isn't how I see it though, by proof I mean some evidence showing that he didn't do the thing he was sentenced for, which in this case he did so shouldn't have a change in his sentence.

If there was evidence that he didn't do the think is was sentenced for, you would appeal against the conviction and if successful, the CPS would have to go for a new one if they felt there was enough evidence still. It wouldn't be the case that the sentence would simply be reduced.

Personally I don't see the justice in giving the original judge of a trial the be all and end all say in the punishment of an offender when often more senior judges may have a better interpretation of the law.

[iCraig]

Impossible to say either way without analysing the specifics of the appeal and *why* it's been reduced. Over zelous sentencing from the judge? New evidence come to light? Contracdictory to precidents set in the past? etc etc

[Von Smallhausen]

I do not bay from blood as a generalisation.

O/t a bit but I was involved in a job where a man was wanted for a serious assault, and I mean serious and he was found with serious injuries and my first thought was ..... save life.

I went to work patching him up and in all honesty I would do the same for David Bieber if I found him but that does not change my opinion of who he is and what he has done.

Anyone who has seen and heard the tape inside Ian Broadhurst's car ( not many ) might understand a little better as to how cold a bastard David Bieber was, is and will always be.