I don't understand why...

[Daddy_O]

If a police officer is killed, the person who is convicted is sentenced to a harsher penalty than if it was Joe Average who was killed. I do not disagree that a murderer should get the hardest penalty, but why is it that Joe's life is not seen to be as significant? This bothers me a bit. I bring this up do to the news showing where a convicted cop killer is trying to get his sentence reduced from life, but the capital hill police are fighting it because they remember when one of their "Family" members are killed. I support their effort fully, but it also makes me feel that individuals who are murdered who are not in law enforcement do not get the same justice as the people who do murder officers. Why are their seperate standards? Shouldn't all murderers be given the same treatment and be held to the same rules? A life is a life, or is it?

 

[Bustem' Down]

A life is a life, or is it?

Of course not silly.

 

[PrchJrkr]

Hear hear! This just is as ignorant as "hate" crimes. I fully support law inforcement personnel, but to put them above the average citizen, just isn't right.

 

[rack'm]

I’d say it boils down to the mindset that “it takes a special kind of POS to kill someone of authority, whacking locals just doesn’t make that big of a splash to them”.

 

[Vixen]

I’d say it boils down to the mindset that “it takes a special kind of POS to kill someone of authority, whacking locals just doesn’t make that big of a splash to them”.

It shows an absolute total defiance, total lack of respect to authority.

 

[mgmtconsultant]

I agree that you just may get more press coverage if it's an officer who is killed. Keep in mind that the police don't really have any say in the court system, so they can't really influence the outcome of sentencing outside of putting together a solid case.

Also, I like to look at it like this: if an officer is killed, more than just the officer and his/her family is affected. That's one less officer protecting you, me, our neighbors, and our kids, so in my opinion, the overall effect is more far-reaching when you look at it like that.

Also, the police community is VERY brotherhood-oriented, more so than the community at large. That may also help explain the outcry.

 

[harleygirl]

I’d say it boils down to the mindset that “it takes a special kind of POS to kill someone of authority, whacking locals just doesn’t make that big of a splash to them”.

Anyone that kills a cop needs to fry.......they are here to serve and protect us. Most of them do it for the glamour of it, if they all would be guaranteed a spot in Old Smokey, it would stop. (sorry, hubby is a cop )

 

[Daddy_O]

** I am in no way trying to argue, just sharing opinions on how I feel...

Also, I like to look at it like this: if an officer is killed, more than just the officer and his/her family is affected. That's one less officer protecting you, me, our neighbors, and our kids, so in my opinion, the overall effect is more far-reaching when you look at it like that.

I understand the point there, but at the same time, the person killed can never be replaced, no matter who they are or what they did. The police officers job can be refilled.



Also, the police community is VERY brotherhood-oriented, more so than the community at large. That may also help explain the outcry.[/QUOTE]


With the police being part of the judicial family, I can see where it would be personal, but at the same time every time someone is killed, it will affect their family. I agree that you want to keep respect towards police, but why not make the penalty for all murder automatic life in prison or death?

 

[rack'm]

but why not make the penalty for all murder automatic death?

Eye for an eye.......

 

[mgmtconsultant]

Daddy O--

I agree that the judicial system isn't nearly as harsh on criminals as it should be, and I mean that all the way around, from misdemeanors to felonies.

You're absolutely right that an officer can be replaced, but not as quickly as one can be eliminated and the community can suffer from the shortage of that one officer. Training academies take months to complete, and then there's an additional training/probationary period in addition to general on-the-job experience that must take place to come anywhere near equalling the officer who was killed.

I agree everyone's life is just as important as the next person's. My original post was simply an attempt to get people to consider an explanation as to why it may seem that the police community only cares about getting harsher penalties for criminals who kill their own.

And I would love to see an automatic death penalty for anyone who murders someone. I was very angry when there was a moratorium several years ago on the death penalty in MD. I thought it was interesting--I read somewhere that Delaware is one of the only states in the country that still has a hanging penalty for murder convictions, and they enforce it. Oddly enough, it hasn't had to be enforced, because potential criminals are either deterred because they don't want to hang, or they're just not getting caught/convicted.

The court system is definitely too lenient in my opinion--part of it could be chalked up to the fact that there are so many cases flying through the courts that the prosecutors don't have enough time to really prepare well ahead of time (I know this for a fact--an old high school friend is a prosecutor), and some judges are also known for being lenient as well. And there are a ton of infractions that are thrown out for various reasons as well.

Just my thoughts.

 

[harleygirl]

With the police being part of the judicial family, I can see where it would be personal, but at the same time every time someone is killed, it will affect their family. I agree that you want to keep respect towards police, but why not make the penalty for all murder automatic life in prison?[/QUOTE]


I agree with you, Daddy-O, but it will never happen. People look at a young 17 year old that grew up in a poor and abusive home and killed someone out of anger vs. the punk that shot down a police officer that was trying to stop him from robbing a bank.

 

[Daddy_O]

Daddy O--

I agree that the judicial system isn't nearly as harsh on criminals as it should be, and I mean that all the way around, from misdemeanors to felonies.

You're absolutely right that an officer can be replaced, but not as quickly as one can be eliminated and the community can suffer from the shortage of that one officer. Training academies take months to complete, and then there's an additional training/probationary period in addition to general on-the-job experience that must take place to come anywhere near equalling the officer who was killed.


Just my thoughts.

never crossed my mind of the training aspect of replacement, point well taken.
also, I also agree with the death penalty, but I also never see the US allowing an automatic sentence of death due differant groups seeing the death penalty as wrong, and I do not argue their views on it.

 

[Ken King]

As stated by others, I think it has to do with the concept that killing an on-duty law enforcement official indicates that the individual doing so has no regard for the laws or those that enforce them making that person a more serious threat to our populace.

 

[Daddy_O]

I agree with you, Daddy-O, but it will never happen. People look at a young 17 year old that grew up in a poor and abusive home and killed someone out of anger vs. the punk that shot down a police officer that was trying to stop him from robbing a bank.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you on the mindset, how can you sentence a man to death for trying to steal to survive vs the criminal who killed the cop due to being greedy and trying to escape...two differant crimanal mind sets where the scenarios must be liiked at.

 

[Daddy_O]

I just read Ken kings reply, and I think he put it in a good concept..

 

[Warron]

I think that killing a police officer is considered an assault on authority, not just a murder. Not that I agree with this view. But my observation has been, that an assault on authority is often treated as being more significant than any other concurrent offense. And often, a simple offense can become a major offense simply by challenging authority.

I think it comes from a view that the state is more important than the individual. A view often seen in totalitarian countries like the former soviet union. Although the US is not totalitarian, I believe there is still an underlying opinion by many that a crime against someone of authority is a crime against the government. And a crime against the government is somehow more significant then one against a mere individual.

Even when the police are doing something they have no authority to do (like seizing bystanders camera’s during a police action), a person can be criminalized simply by refusing to obey. I think that this in itself shows that the value of continuity of authority is greater then that of the individual.

 

[FancyBelle]

It also is of the mindset that if you have the cahunas to kill an armed person, you're likely to kill anyone without any hesitation. These guys are armed with about 30 lbs of life threatening equipment every day.

 

[Nickel]

Eye for an eye.......

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. :shrug:

 

[BuddyLee]

Average Joe is protected by the cop. Average Joe does not protect average Joe. We need laws and law enforcement or we'd all be killing each other in the state of nature we'd be living in.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Average Joe is protected by the cop. Average Joe does not protect average Joe. We need laws and law enforcement or we'd all be killing each other in the state of nature we'd be living in.

And I would be King!