Should they face harsher punishment?

[smokey]

If a person such as a policeman (or obviously policewoman) is convicted of a crime should they still face the same deggree of punishment as any regular person or should they serve a more harsher punishment?

I was looking for a perticular news story today, something I heard on the radio about a policeman being charged with rape and I came across alot of other articles within the last year or two of the same sort of thing.

Personaly I think they should face a harsher sentance because they not only commited a discusting crime such as rape, murder or being a peodophile so recieve their punishment for that but these are men and woman that are put in a trusted position of power, they are supposed to be intrusted to protect people from these crimes in the first place so use their position to gain trust.
The crime itself is bad enough but they made promises to help victems and then to go and make victems themselfs is just beyond discusting.

some of the stories I came across while looking for my intended one (never did find it in the end)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-14767601
https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/25/police-officer-convicted-rape
https://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/26/new-york-city-police-officers-cleared-rape

 

[aliss]

No.

Okay, I will admit my bias - I have worked in policing for several years.

There are SO MANY positions of trust - police, doctors, lawyers, judges, school teachers, etc. One person should not be subject to harsher punishments on the basis of their occupation.

Their offense, their criminal history, the circumstances of the offense, etc. are all general accepted reasons for someone to receive a harsher punishment within the standards given for the punishment according to the crime.

Now, I think there should be a harsher punishment on those who use their positions of authority to commit the offense (aka. "grooming" or "intimidation" or whatever you want to call it), yes, absolutely.

If police officer Joe is off duty at a party and sexually assaults a woman, he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man.

If police officer Joe is off duty, pulls out his badge and tells her to come with him for police purposes, and does the same thing, then he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man with an additional weight on his punishment for using a position of authority.

I hope I make sense?

Any police officer who does anything like that can personally rot in hell, IMO. I'm really, really tired of getting attitude from people because some idiot goes and does something stupid like that. There are so many of us who work SO HARD and keep our noses clean, and they ruin it for us. Believe me, I hate those corrupt *******s even more than the average person!!!

 

[xolily]

no.

Okay, i will admit my bias - i have worked in policing for several years.

There are so many positions of trust - police, doctors, lawyers, judges, school teachers, etc. One person should not be subject to harsher punishments on the basis of their occupation.

Their offense, their criminal history, the circumstances of the offense, etc. Are all general accepted reasons for someone to receive a harsher punishment within the standards given for the punishment according to the crime.

Now, i think there should be a harsher punishment on those who use their positions of authority to commit the offense (aka. "grooming" or "intimidation" or whatever you want to call it), yes, absolutely.

If police officer joe is off duty at a party and sexually assaults a woman, he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man.

If police officer joe is off duty, pulls out his badge and tells her to come with him for police purposes, and does the same thing, then he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man with an additional weight on his punishment for using a position of authority.

I hope i make sense?

Any police officer who does anything like that can personally rot in hell, imo. I'm really, really tired of getting attitude from people because some idiot goes and does something stupid like that. There are so many of us who work so hard and keep our noses clean, and they ruin it for us. Believe me, i hate those corrupt *******s even more than the average person!!!

^^ wss

 

[Blah11]

I do but only because if you hit a policeman (or worse) then the punishments are much severer for the criminal. I assume this is because theyre figures of law but if thats the case, then if they break the law they should also have harsher punishments.

 

[indy and lara]

No I don't. There is one law for all and that is how it should be. Where do you draw the line? As Aliss says, there are lots of positions of authority so should they all be treated more harshly? What is it is a more minor offense, such as speeding? Should they still be treated more harshly?

 

[tallybee]

No.

Okay, I will admit my bias - I have worked in policing for several years.

There are SO MANY positions of trust - police, doctors, lawyers, judges, school teachers, etc. One person should not be subject to harsher punishments on the basis of their occupation.

Their offense, their criminal history, the circumstances of the offense, etc. are all general accepted reasons for someone to receive a harsher punishment within the standards given for the punishment according to the crime.

Now, I think there should be a harsher punishment on those who use their positions of authority to commit the offense (aka. "grooming" or "intimidation" or whatever you want to call it), yes, absolutely.

If police officer Joe is off duty at a party and sexually assaults a woman, he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man.

If police officer Joe is off duty, pulls out his badge and tells her to come with him for police purposes, and does the same thing, then he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man with an additional weight on his punishment for using a position of authority.

I hope I make sense?

Any police officer who does anything like that can personally rot in hell, IMO. I'm really, really tired of getting attitude from people because some idiot goes and does something stupid like that. There are so many of us who work SO HARD and keep our noses clean, and they ruin it for us. Believe me, I hate those corrupt *******s even more than the average person!!!

Completely agree with this x

 

[vaniilla]

my dad is an ex police chief and he would agree with harder punishment, not only does it undermine their position but it undermines the whole team and puts everyone under scrutiny, I think it depends on the nature of the crime a bit too, if its something which would have been influenced by their job i.e abusing their power or luring in/threatening victims because of their position then they should have the book thrown at them in full force imo

 

[Eternal]

No.

Okay, I will admit my bias - I have worked in policing for several years.

There are SO MANY positions of trust - police, doctors, lawyers, judges, school teachers, etc. One person should not be subject to harsher punishments on the basis of their occupation.

Their offense, their criminal history, the circumstances of the offense, etc. are all general accepted reasons for someone to receive a harsher punishment within the standards given for the punishment according to the crime.

Now, I think there should be a harsher punishment on those who use their positions of authority to commit the offense (aka. "grooming" or "intimidation" or whatever you want to call it), yes, absolutely.

If police officer Joe is off duty at a party and sexually assaults a woman, he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man.

If police officer Joe is off duty, pulls out his badge and tells her to come with him for police purposes, and does the same thing, then he should be charged, tried, and convicted as any other man with an additional weight on his punishment for using a position of authority.

I hope I make sense?

Any police officer who does anything like that can personally rot in hell, IMO. I'm really, really tired of getting attitude from people because some idiot goes and does something stupid like that. There are so many of us who work SO HARD and keep our noses clean, and they ruin it for us. Believe me, I hate those corrupt *******s even more than the average person!!!

WSS But also agree with Blah11

 

[Nibblenic]

I do but only because if you hit a policeman (or worse) then the punishments are much severer for the criminal. I assume this is because theyre figures of law but if thats the case, then if they break the law they should also have harsher punishments.

Its not just if you hit a policeman you get a harsher punishment though. Its the same for any public service figure, so nhs staff, firefighters. etc

I agree with the others. If they abuse their position to commit crime most certainly harsher punishment.

Otherwise the same as everyone else.

 

[Eternal]

I do but only because if you hit a policeman (or worse) then the punishments are much severer for the criminal. I assume this is because theyre figures of law but if thats the case, then if they break the law they should also have harsher punishments.

Its not just if you hit a policeman you get a harsher punishment though. Its the same for any public service figure, so nhs staff, firefighters. etc

I agree with the others. If they abuse their position to commit crime most certainly harsher punishment.

Otherwise the same as everyone else.

I trained as a nurse as wasnt awear that our compliants were taken seriously at all, less so than a normal case of someone being abusive, not that i ever made a compliant, it kind of just became part of the job, but still a friend reported someone once and felt like when she was making her complaint people were looking down on her because its just part of the job.

But then, if a nurse gets commited of a crime she will loose her registration to practice, i assume thats the same for police?

 

[Nibblenic]

I think it depends on the crime.

Like you can get points on your driving licence but not drunk drive. You can drop rubbish in the street and be fined but not fly tip.

 

[aliss]

I had a Staff Sergeant with a conviction for driving while impaired... Whether or not you keep your job after is dependent on a few things: your length of service, your ability to do other things on the job (ie. not drive), the seriousness of your offense, who makes the deciding factor at police complaint boards, and whether or not the press gets wind of it.

 

[DanielleM]

I agree with Aliss on this.

 

[smokey]

For the sake of this thread I was more refering to serious crimes such as pedophiles, murder and rape (ie the ones in the news articles) rather then things such as speeding and littering.
I do still think they should face a harsher punishment for these more serious crimes because in my mind they made a promise to protect and have abused and shamed that promise.

 

[aliss]

For the sake of this thread I was more refering to serious crimes such as pedophiles, murder and rape (ie the ones in the news articles) rather then things such as speeding and littering.
I do still think they should face a harsher punishment for these more serious crimes because in my mind they made a promise to protect and have abused and shamed that promise.

Okay, but then what about other professions that also require a level of protection and responsibility, such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc?

And on the flip side, if one person commits a murder and should be punished further based on the sole fact that they are a police officer, why should the chef/factory worker/Starbucks employee receive less punishment for the same offense?

Aside from being on shift, police officers are no different than any other person. Right now, my husband is sitting at downstairs playing Mass Effect on his computer and eating popcorn, in his boxers and a T-shirt. He is no different than any other man. I'm just sitting on BnB and chatting with you all, a normal wife and mom like anyone else. Why anyone else should receive less punishment for a murder, etc. than me or him, simply because of an occupation we do for 40 of the 168 hours per week is beyond me. I have to take a similar oath for my civilian position and have access to the same information/work the same shift as him, so do I qualify? Who is responsible to the public and who is not?

I think sometimes the public's perception of what the police actually do is skewed. The majority of patrol officers are dealing with credit card complaints, noise bylaws, landlord disputes, and spending 4-6 hours a day writing report after report, writing tags on exhibits, drinking coffee, more reports, filing records, etc. Once you get higher up in the chain, you're doing even less on a daily basis! Just more paperwork! Yes, they take an oath, but the idea of running around saving lives happens maybe a few times a year... maybe a month if you work in a big urban area.

Why an oath and that ^ work on a daily basis should result in punishment beyond what the law determines to be fair does not make sense to me

 

[smokey]

For the sake of this thread I was more refering to serious crimes such as pedophiles, murder and rape (ie the ones in the news articles) rather then things such as speeding and littering.
I do still think they should face a harsher punishment for these more serious crimes because in my mind they made a promise to protect and have abused and shamed that promise.

Okay, but then what about other professions that also require a level of protection and responsibility, such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc?

And on the flip side, if one person commits a murder and should be punished further based on the sole fact that they are a police officer, why should the chef/factory worker/Starbucks employee receive less punishment for the same offense?

Aside from being on shift, police officers are no different than any other person. Right now, my husband is sitting at downstairs playing Mass Effect on his computer and eating popcorn, in his boxers and a T-shirt. He is no different than any other man. I'm just sitting on BnB and chatting with you all, a normal wife and mom like anyone else. Why anyone else should receive less punishment for a murder, etc. than me or him, simply because of an occupation we do for 40 of the 168 hours per week is beyond me. I have to take a similar oath for my civilian position and have access to the same information/work the same shift as him, so do I qualify? Who is responsible to the public and who is not?

I think sometimes the public's perception of what the police actually do is skewed. The majority of patrol officers are dealing with credit card complaints, noise bylaws, landlord disputes, and spending 4-6 hours a day writing report after report, writing tags on exhibits, drinking coffee, more reports, filing records, etc. Once you get higher up in the chain, you're doing even less on a daily basis! Just more paperwork! Yes, they take an oath, but the idea of running around saving lives happens maybe a few times a year... maybe a month if you work in a big urban area.

Why an oath and that ^ work on a daily basis should result in punishment beyond what the law determines to be fair does not make sense to me

But im not on about any other proffesion or that they recieve less of a punishment, they still would get the standard punishment, I just think that if you have made a oath to protect the public and keep rapists (for example) off the streets to then turn around and become one yourself deserves additional punishment.
A factory worker didnt promise to uphold the law and bring justice to crimals or protect the public.
The policeman that was convicted of being a peodophile, its his responsability to stop these people from harming children not become one himself.
Again im not saying people who didnt take an oath should be let off lightly far from it.

I do actualy feel the same with other proffesions as well, if a dr is convicted of murdering his patiant he should be treated harsher because he was supposed to save lifes, to delibretly take that life goes against everything his proffesion, training, oath stands for.
Same as there was another story about a judge convicted of rape, he is ment to bring justice to such people.

At the end of the day most police officers do face a harsher time if they are imprisoned especialy from other cell mates if its found out about them being a police officer.

If 2 men where convicted of starting riots and it then turned out one was actualy a off duty police officer in the riot squad do you think they should both be treated equaly and face the exact same punishment then?

 

[aliss]

For the sake of this thread I was more refering to serious crimes such as pedophiles, murder and rape (ie the ones in the news articles) rather then things such as speeding and littering.
I do still think they should face a harsher punishment for these more serious crimes because in my mind they made a promise to protect and have abused and shamed that promise.

Okay, but then what about other professions that also require a level of protection and responsibility, such as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc?

And on the flip side, if one person commits a murder and should be punished further based on the sole fact that they are a police officer, why should the chef/factory worker/Starbucks employee receive less punishment for the same offense?

Aside from being on shift, police officers are no different than any other person. Right now, my husband is sitting at downstairs playing Mass Effect on his computer and eating popcorn, in his boxers and a T-shirt. He is no different than any other man. I'm just sitting on BnB and chatting with you all, a normal wife and mom like anyone else. Why anyone else should receive less punishment for a murder, etc. than me or him, simply because of an occupation we do for 40 of the 168 hours per week is beyond me. I have to take a similar oath for my civilian position and have access to the same information/work the same shift as him, so do I qualify? Who is responsible to the public and who is not?

I think sometimes the public's perception of what the police actually do is skewed. The majority of patrol officers are dealing with credit card complaints, noise bylaws, landlord disputes, and spending 4-6 hours a day writing report after report, writing tags on exhibits, drinking coffee, more reports, filing records, etc. Once you get higher up in the chain, you're doing even less on a daily basis! Just more paperwork! Yes, they take an oath, but the idea of running around saving lives happens maybe a few times a year... maybe a month if you work in a big urban area.

Why an oath and that ^ work on a daily basis should result in punishment beyond what the law determines to be fair does not make sense to me

If 2 men where convicted of starting riots and it then turned out one was actualy a off duty police officer in the riot squad do you think they should both be treated equaly and face the exact same punishment then?

Yes, they should be subject to the same criminal punishments. If the police force then wishes to suspend/fire/fine whatever the police officer based on their own personal conduct matters then that's a separate issue.

An oath to uphold one's duty in a career does not equate higher standards within the criminal code. A job is a job. Police officers are no different than you or anyone else on the street, they wake up to an alarm clock, go to work, go home to their families, watch TV, go to movies, pay their bills the same as anyone else.

Like I said earlier, if they use their profession as a means of committing a criminal offense then yes, that is an abuse of authority and should be subject to additional punishment, but by virtue of simply holding a particular job does not mean one should be held as more accountable than their peers on a criminal level. Criminal culpability goes far beyond basic elements such as one's occupation. All people are to be held equally under the law when being subject to sentencing - if someone is sentenced harsher based on the sole virtue of their occupation then that is not equal.

If a man or a woman stood trial for sexual assault on a minor, and one sentenced harsher based solely on their sex, human rights groups would blow a gasket. Does it realistically occur? Sure, I can imagine that a woman convicted of sexual assault would be sentenced harsher as a judge may believe that she 'should have protected that child' - so realistically, may a police officer be sentenced harsher? In practice, I'm sure it happens. But is it ethically correct to sentence a woman harsher "because she should have known to protect a child?" No, not at all, that's a complete violation of ethics. What about a Muslim sentenced harsher for an impaired driving causing death? As they have taken the oath of Islam and are not allowed alcohol. The oath of Islam is not legally binding here and that oath cannot be used here. Now, in Saudi Arabia where the oath is legally binding, it sure can. And a woman can be sentenced differently than a man too. But out here (and I mean the west in general as I'm in Canada, not the UK), you are meant to be tried equally, I think that's part of the justice system that people fight so hard for.

I know plenty of retired police officers that now work in different fields, or even just quit to be stay at home moms. Are they now no longer subject to those criminal standards simply because their oath expires? What about a trainee, who is fully certified but hasn't taken their full oath yet? But still has their gun?

I guess my question is this - how can a particular municipal department's policy of oath (which employment related and under civil law, not criminal) have ANY relation to the element of culpability in criminal intent under criminal law? It is, by it's own nature, a complete contradiction of everything that law stands for.

 

[JASMAK]

Hmmm...not sure how I feel about this one. I think that police officers know the law quite well, and might use certain 'loop holes' to perhaps get away with things...not sure...

 

[cherryglitter]

I do but only because if you hit a policeman (or worse) then the punishments are much severer for the criminal. I assume this is because theyre figures of law but if thats the case, then if they break the law they should also have harsher punishments.

Agree with this.