Restoring the Death Penalty in Britain
Is it time for society to take the hard line??
One writer's opinions
…The assassination of two young, unarmed female police officers in Manchester, Britain, on Tuesday, who were apparently lured to their death by shooting, along with a hand-grenade for good measure, by a person actually out on bail accused of another murder, has had this country dividing its loyalties between arming police or not; bringing back the death-penalty, or not.
Death sentences in Britain have been banned for any reason since 1998, although the last person hanged here was in 1964. In 2004, the EEC Convention of Human Rights banned the practice across the board for Union countries and a member seeking to restore the death penalty would have to cease to be a party to these mandates before it could proceed.
In lockstep with the argument to restore the death penalty in crimes such as the execution of the officers this week, is the furor by the public wanting to know why this criminal was on bail at all and why two unarmed police officers were sent to answer what had been reported as a burglary report!
It has been reported that many police officers, themselves, object to carrying weapons, as do many members of a citizenry still unaccustomed to gun violence. This, despite the fact that many if not most societies today see arming police officers as standard practice, including most of the countries in Europe. Britain is the main standout, as is New Zealand and Iceland, although these countries seem very vague about just what their firearms policy really is. (New Zealand, for example, used to allow officers to carry high-powered rifles in their patrol vehicles to dispatch injured stock or deer they found by the roadside). In many instances, administrations leave it to individual officers to carry or not as they see fit.
In Britain, only about 20% of officers regularly carry firearms, although this may certainly rise after the incident this week.
My own opinion, for what it may be worth, is that ALL police should be well-versed and schooled in the use of hand-guns and be required to hold a diploma and weekly practice, as they do in many US States. I believe ALL police responding to 999 or other calls from the public should attend any reported crime armed with a suitable weapon, (such as a 9 mm hand-gun). Much has been said (by the police) about the police response on Tuesday as being for a “routine domestic burglary,” which is why the officers were unarmed and possibly inexperienced. Well, burglars come in all shapes, sizes and degrees of sociopathic attitudes; many also carry knives and, yes, guns…failing this, a smack on the head by a poker can be as fatal as a bullet…ALL calls for burglary should be met by armed officers…as should calls of help over domestic violence. In fact, who can ever determine whether a “routine” call will go sour very quickly resulting on violence upon the attending officers? Police - and especially young, female officers - should not have to defend themselves against male offenders without the last word: a weapon. Generally, criminals will think twice about pushing things with an armed officer. The gun doesn’t have to be used in most cases, it just acts as the badge of authority and gives the police officer the advantage in most cases.
It’s specious nonsense to say “If the police arm themselves, so will the crooks.” The “crooks” these days are armed anyway, and for a criminal to use or display a gun against a police officer immediately ensures him of a mandatory jail sentence - or it should.
Our laws need amending to deny bail in any offence involving criminal violence, such as murder, or crimes involving weapons. What sad bungling or lack of effective jurisprudence allowed this sicko, Dale Cregan, out on bail while he was about to be convicted of TWO, or more, murders? Apart from the officers he is now charged with.
I think crimes like this are a good reason to have the ultimate deterrent, the death penalty. This scum will now be in prison for the rest of his days at the nation’s expense. He will be feared and “respected” by other cons (as those who murder all too often are).
He will have a comfortable life with all the amenities at his disposal such as canteen, TV, education and paid work. (as well as drugs and alcohol and homosexual diversions if he wishes…oh, yes!). He will become adjusted to confinement and his life will not be an onerous one after the initial adjustment. Compare this to the lives of the two police officers, snuffed out at age 29 and 23, and of their families having to carry this burden of sadness all their days. You decide who is worse off.
We have a Britain seething with scum from all over the world who have found easy criminal pickings here. The leniency from the courts and the lack of threat from our mild police is vastly different from what they received back home.
Britain IS a decent country, but our complacency is now threatening our way of life…
We should arm our peace officers, it is NOT an oxymoron.
We should review all bail procedures for dangerous criminals
We should consider bringing back the death penalty for these hideous and violent crimes becoming more and more common.
We have to do something…
More by this Author
Many capital cities were changed around in the last 100 to 150 years, some being built from the ground-up. The one that stands out is probably Brasilia which rose from the jungles of Brazil in 1960 and, after many...
Not All Doctors Get a License to Steal Becoming a doctor in Mexico is a vastly different journey than that of his peers in the USA and the UK. It often appears in North America that receiving a medical degree is like...
Owls: The Stuff of Magic and Legend. The Owl, by Robert Challen de Mercer (From Charged Particles) “All the forest dwellers take fright, At the silent ruler of the night. Wily hunter with steely...