Key witness in Botham Jean case shot to death.

[zxcvbob]

"He accidentally pulled the trigger" is definitely less damning than any scenario where he pulled the trigger on purpose out of fear or panic or what have you.

It's really not to people who preach gun safety (like the NRA, or at least they used to) His finger had no business on the trigger. His gun had no business out of its holster, but cops get a *lot* of leeway on this for some reason.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The point is to hold the police to account and they aren't the ones purposely targeted for mass incarceration and the prison pipeline, they actually enforce and enable it.

 

[MaryKB]

@Cloud_Strife I'm very happy to see the police being taken to task for these kinds of things ... I just wish you'd also see the male officers held accountable, not just the women punished.

I feel @Gorbles and @Lexicus both make good points and you're both right. Lexicus, sometimes I feel like you feel that something has to pass your purity standards 100% to be viewed as acceptable by you, sort of an all-or-nothing kind of thing. I feel you're missing out a lot too on mass incarceration, because I do believe that private prisons affect things, since you have companies lobbying to increase sentences for non-violent crimes so they can crowd their prisons with prisoners and make huge profits. I feel that Elizabeth Warren's idea isn't going to solve our problems completely, but it's going to do something to make a big difference.

I still feel most of these problems with these shootings ultimately boils down to a dangerous crossing between our gun culture and our institutionalized racism

 

[Cloud_Strife]

The police are still a big boys club at heart.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, you are wrong imo. It is exactly this impulse to punish, to see people do long sentences of hard time, that is responsible for mass incarceration. Anyone suggesting that mass incarceration in the US is primarily driven by private for-profit prisons does not know what they are talking about. The major political actors supporting the status quo are in fact the public-sector police and corrections officers unions.

This is why I cringe when I see things like Elizabeth Warren's Facebook page pledging to abolish private prisons and immigration detention centers, because it's a way of pretending to take a bold stand while not actually doing much about the problem. It also suggests that Warren& her team are either not really familiar with the issue or cynically making that stand even though they know it is a marginal thing, and either possibility is bad.

I think an important separation you're not making is federal vs. state prisons.

Also, notably, California has made moves against private prisons and forced detention centres - see this link - so it doesn't necessarily seem to just be some cynical politician's ploy for election. It seems to have more backing than you're willing to admit. Here's another piece on the increase in private prisons.

There are plenty of aspects to mass incarceration, but private prisons are a large aspect of that. Certainly when we're talking about an individual getting jail time - you're the one that raised mass incarceration as some kind of moral talking point. Should we talk more about violence in society? Sure. But that's a separate track to the existing legal framework around sentencing.

Ensuring someone who flat-out murdered someone gets decent prison time is a specific case and should be examined on its own merits. There is no racial aspect to consider here, for example. There is a gender-based aspect (as MaryKB rightly points out - the fall guy, when a fall guy actually happens, is rarely a guy). Unless you're suggesting these kinds of people shouldn't be imprisoned? What's the solution, for you?

 

[Lexicus]

I feel @Gorbles and @Lexicus both make good points and you're both right. Lexicus, sometimes I feel like you feel that something has to pass your purity standards 100% to be viewed as acceptable by you, sort of an all-or-nothing kind of thing. I feel you're missing out a lot too on mass incarceration, because I do believe that private prisons affect things, since you have companies lobbying to increase sentences for non-violent crimes so they can crowd their prisons with prisoners and make huge profits. I feel that Elizabeth Warren's idea isn't going to solve our problems completely, but it's going to do something to make a big difference.

I am just using Warren's idea as an example, I believe you're reading too much into that one line. I have heard similar argument from many others besides Warren. I'm just using her as an example because I happened to see her Facebook account post about abolishing private prisons in the last couple of days.

I am not arguing that the dynamic you're talking about (profit motive creating an incentive to crowd private prisons) doesn't exist. But I will argue it is not a significant driver of the prison population as demonstrated by the evidence I already posted, which I'll repeat again:

Another major mistake among reformers is to get preoccupied with the private prison industry while ignoring the more significant and consequential role played by the public sector—and especially by correctional officer unions.

The private sector is a relatively minor player in the criminal justice system, despite all the hand-wringing it induces. Mass incarceration, and mass punishment more broadly, is a public-sector failure, not a capitalist one. Which implies, in the end, that the real problem rests not with some shadowy cabal of financiers, but with us, the electorate.

In 2016, private prisons held about 8.5 percent of all prisoners nationwide, and over half those prisoners are held in just five states; at least twenty-one states have no private prisons at all. There is also little evidence indicating that states with private prisons saw faster prison population growth rates than those without them. And contrary to the conventional wisdom, there is no consistent evidence that private prisons are generally worse places than public ones.

The fact that there is "little evidence" that states with private prisons saw faster prison population growth than states without is key for the argument here.

Lexicus, sometimes I feel like you feel that something has to pass your purity standards 100% to be viewed as acceptable by you, sort of an all-or-nothing kind of thing.

I just want to highlight this for a moment. In this particular case please recall that Elizabeth Warren is actually the only Presidential candidate I've given money to. I'm just willing to call out what I see as the deficiencies in my own side or in the candidates I support. There is no hope of fixing a candidate's problems if I ignore them because I'm 80% on their side instead of 100%. Or who knows, maybe someone will push back and convince me I'm wrong about the deficiencies in the first place.

I think an important separation you're not making is federal vs. state prisons.

Except that that separation is directly addressed in the text I quoted from the article I linked:

But the respondents in the Vox poll—who are consistent with every conversation I’ve ever had about prison growth—had the numbers wrong. The percentage of people in state prisons for drugs is not anywhere close to 50 percent; it is 15 percent. It’s true that about half of all federal prisoners are serving time for drug-related offenses, but the Feds hold only about 10 percent of all U.S. prisoners.

Also, notably, California has made moves against private prisons and forced detention centres - see this link - so it doesn't necessarily seem to just be some cynical politician's ploy for election.

You misunderstand me. I believe that taking steps against private detention centers and prisons is absolutely necessary. My response to any action taken against them will be: that is great, now what are you doing to reduce the overall prison population and to improve conditions at prisons given that only 8.5% of prisoners in the whole country are incarcerated in private facilities?

private prisons are a large aspect of that.

8.5% is not a large percentage by any stretch of the imagination.

Ensuring someone who flat-out murdered someone gets decent prison time is a specific case and should be examined on its own merits.

Mass incarceration is made of millions of specific cases that all were examined on their own merits. We can talk about deficiencies in the examination - and I certainly will talk endlessly about how the criminal justice system is rigged against defendants of color but also overwhelmingly and totally against poor defendants of any race - but you're drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist in order to talk about punishing BAD PEOPLE in a way that doesn't contribute to mass incarceration. But the impulse to punish BAD PEOPLE is precisely why mass incarceration exists.

Unless you're suggesting these kinds of people shouldn't be imprisoned? What's the solution, for you?

I'm a prison abolitionist at heart, what can I say? I believe prison should purely be about rehabilitating people which means reducing recidivism. Research and evidence from countries like Norway suggests that means reducing sentence lengths and drastically improving conditions for prisoners across the board, regardless of whether they're guilty of serious violent crimes like murder or rape. Much of the left today won't want to hear that we need to treat rapists better in prison but there it is.

 

[MaryKB]

I don't feel that your statistics are relevant to private prisons' effect on our incarceration. Lobbyists for those prisons are affecting how we perceive how criminals should be treated, and if say for example private prison lobbyists get their narrative across and we flood our prisons with non-violent criminals, then those aren't only going to go to private prisons, but to all prisons, right? But the existence of private prisons gives people with lobbying power a motive to want to put more and more people into prisons.

 

[Gorbles]

Except that that separation is directly addressed in the text I quoted from the article I linked:

You misunderstand me. I believe that taking steps against private detention centers and prisons is absolutely necessary. My response to any action taken against them will be: that is great, now what are you doing to reduce the overall prison population and to improve conditions at prisons given that only 8.5% of prisoners in the whole country are incarcerated in private facilities?

8.5% is not a large percentage by any stretch of the imagination.

Mass incarceration is made of millions of specific cases that all were examined on their own merits. We can talk about deficiencies in the examination - and I certainly will talk endlessly about how the criminal justice system is rigged against defendants of color but also overwhelmingly and totally against poor defendants of any race - but you're drawing a distinction that doesn't really exist in order to talk about punishing BAD PEOPLE in a way that doesn't contribute to mass incarceration. But the impulse to punish BAD PEOPLE is precisely why mass incarceration exists.

I'm a prison abolitionist at heart, what can I say? I believe prison should purely be about rehabilitating people which means reducing recidivism. Research and evidence from countries like Norway suggests that means reducing sentence lengths and drastically improving conditions for prisoners across the board, regardless of whether they're guilty of serious violent crimes like murder or rape. Much of the left today won't want to hear that we need to treat rapists better in prison but there it is.

1. No, as in they're being conflated with regards to the topic of mass incarceration. The US makes it inherently more difficult to discuss (for me) vs. the UK primarily because of the differences in federal vs. state facilities and the cultural clusterfudges that arise from perceptions of both.

2. I want to say "not arguing against murderers getting more jail time", but that's a bit glib See my last point at the bottom.

3. Firstly, I'd argue it is (at the least, statistically-significant), and secondly, the point of the second link I provided was to show how much it's grown. That's a dangerous increase, right? If I had to make a comparable parallel to UK business and culture I'd say the ongoing strip-mining and general privatisation of the NHS. By the numbers, it's not always that bad to look at. But the trend is worrying.

4. The impulse to punish needs to be separated from the moral responsibility to do the same. It's a very difficult topic, and not one I can do justice to, but see my last point, below.

5. Which is where we reach the crux of the issue in my opinion. The issue isn't Cloud's, or my own, support for imprisoning clear hazards to general society. This isn't to do with mass incarceration per see. This is to do with your stance on prison abolition, and one that honestly seems a lot more rigid than just "at heart". I support dismantling the current systems, there will always be a need to keep certain people in a cell so they don't walk around happily killing other members of society. That's a given. Recidivism isn't something you can point at one country and go "hey look that works" because we're discussing human nature. If someone can latch onto an idea that justifies something for them, then you're stuffed. See: ongoing neverending depressing debate about firearms in the US. There are numerous well-evidenced examples that run contrary to embedded principles (and well-funded NRA messaging) - you have to take the current state of society and contrast that against your idealistic goal. This isn't me arguing against doing anything about prison abolition, for the record. I'm not saying "it's a pipe dream it'll never work".

For example, what if reducing sentence time doesn't work for this convicted offender (the woman officer)? What if she re-offends, or is reinserted into the office that normalised such a thing in the first place? Yes, this is speculation, but you cannot discount the possibility of it occurring. How many peoples' lives is this one person's rehabilitation worth? I fervently support justice for the victims in these situations - not some kind of re-acceptance into society for the perpetrator. Improving prison conditions? You won't see me arguing against. Reducing sentences? You need to prove that not only it would help in America, but that it'd help in a cop-heavy environment which seems to have a severe and ongoing problem with the dehumanisation and subsequent suffering of minorities.

 

[Socrates99]

If context is king, proportion can't be everything. It's probably worth carefully exploring that context, because people do get wrongfully shot.



Yeah, and an "open door" isn't enough to change that either. What non-arbitrary "threat" was allegedly perceived? If we're firing guns, that SHOULD have a burden of proof on the necessity. I'd be very interested to see what "threat" manifests on the body cam footage.



Having a harsher standard for using firearms on enemies in foreign countries than for police interacting with own citizens seems backwards. It also suggests that proper training exists, albeit not necessarily a standard for law enforcement.

The way information was relayed to the former vet seems like misconduct. Is there a reason for protocol to leave reported information out when relaying it to officers in emergency situations?

I'm going to guess they left it out to prevent a false sense of security in case the guy did load it without his girlfriend knowing. I'm sure if the guy made the wrong type of move Mader would have fired. It says a lot about him that he risked his life to preserve another's. "I'm not gonna shoot you brother."

 

[Lexicus]

I don't feel that your statistics are relevant to private prisons' effect on our incarceration. Lobbyists for those prisons are affecting how we perceive how criminals should be treated, and if say for example private prison lobbyists get their narrative across and we flood our prisons with non-violent criminals, then those aren't only going to go to private prisons, but to all prisons, right? But the existence of private prisons gives people with lobbying power a motive to want to put more and more people into prisons.

I would expect lobbying for private prisons to be unevenly distributed between states with private prisons and states without, actually. Perhaps at the federal level you would expect to see a more nationally evenly-distributed effect.

Actually, one related point I've forgotten until now: private prison contractors often supply various services and items to public prisons, and that is an aspect of the prison-industry complex that is not addressed at all by banning private prisons.

4. The impulse to punish needs to be separated from the moral responsibility to do the same. It's a very difficult topic, and not one I can do justice to, but see my last point, below.

5. Which is where we reach the crux of the issue in my opinion. The issue isn't Cloud's, or my own, support for imprisoning clear hazards to general society. This isn't to do with mass incarceration per see. This is to do with your stance on prison abolition, and one that honestly seems a lot more rigid than just "at heart". I support dismantling the current systems, there will always be a need to keep certain people in a cell so they don't walk around happily killing other members of society. That's a given. Recidivism isn't something you can point at one country and go "hey look that works" because we're discussing human nature. If someone can latch onto an idea that justifies something for them, then you're stuffed. See: ongoing neverending depressing debate about firearms in the US. There are numerous well-evidenced examples that run contrary to embedded principles (and well-funded NRA messaging) - you have to take the current state of society and contrast that against your idealistic goal. This isn't me arguing against doing anything about prison abolition, for the record. I'm not saying "it's a pipe dream it'll never work".

For example, what if reducing sentence time doesn't work for this convicted offender (the woman officer)? What if she re-offends, or is reinserted into the office that normalised such a thing in the first place? Yes, this is speculation, but you cannot discount the possibility of it occurring. How many peoples' lives is this one person's rehabilitation worth? I fervently support justice for the victims in these situations - not some kind of re-acceptance into society for the perpetrator. Improving prison conditions? You won't see me arguing against. Reducing sentences? You need to prove that not only it would help in America, but that it'd help in a cop-heavy environment which seems to have a severe and ongoing problem with the dehumanisation and subsequent suffering of minorities.

Yeah, see, I basically disagree with all of this. From where I'm standing the "impulse to punish" is to me exactly the same as the "moral responsibility to punish" and it is that issue that is at the bottom of mass incarceration. The prison-industry complex is just a particularly egregious outgrowth of that fundamental problem. You and Cloud supporting "imprisoning clear hazards to society" is, in fact, the issue here (not literally just you two, of course, but your attitude is widely held).

In fact, I am unsure whether you are familiar with the concept of "carceral feminism" or not but it is through carceral feminism that mass incarceration and the police/surveillance state come to be supported by nominally left-leaning individuals. We have a social tendency to respond to examples of unequal treatment in the justice system by demanding that the "privileged" party get a longer sentence, more harsh treatment, but that is exactly the opposite of what our response should be.

Bear in mind, I'm assuming that you were against mass incarceration to begin with here. If you do not seek to substantially reduce the number of imprisoned people in the US as a goal-in-itself then my response needs to move upstream, so to speak.

I want to highlight the irony of your using the Willie Horton argument here in this context. If you're not familiar with the Willie Horton ad, look it up. It appealed to racism in the electorate, certainly, but it also worked by appealing to the lizard brain that delights in inflicting punishment on those who have done wrong. Fear of being successfully Willie Hortoned is why even people like Elizabeth Warren will go no further than "get rid of private prisons."

Finally, I think there is obviously a class dimension to all of this, and that prison in the US has very clearly been a way of managing the surplus population created by capitalism. The surplus population, written off as worthless because the private sector does not profitably employ it, obviously presents the most immediate threat to social order under capitalism. In fact, the entire growth of modern policing and prison as we know it basically happened as a way to manage this population.

 

[Gorbles]

Yeah, see, I basically disagree with all of this. From where I'm standing the "impulse to punish" is to me exactly the same as the "moral responsibility to punish" and it is that issue that is at the bottom of mass incarceration. The prison-industry complex is just a particularly egregious outgrowth of that fundamental problem. You and Cloud supporting "imprisoning clear hazards to society" is, in fact, the issue here (not literally just you two, of course, but your attitude is widely held).

In fact, I am unsure whether you are familiar with the concept of "carceral feminism" or not but it is through carceral feminism that mass incarceration and the police/surveillance state come to be supported by nominally left-leaning individuals. We have a social tendency to respond to examples of unequal treatment in the justice system by demanding that the "privileged" party get a longer sentence, more harsh treatment, but that is exactly the opposite of what our response should be.

Bear in mind, I'm assuming that you were against mass incarceration to begin with here. If you do not seek to substantially reduce the number of imprisoned people in the US as a goal-in-itself then my response needs to move upstream, so to speak.

I want to highlight the irony of your using the Willie Horton argument here in this context. If you're not familiar with the Willie Horton ad, look it up. It appealed to racism in the electorate, certainly, but it also worked by appealing to the lizard brain that delights in inflicting punishment on those who have done wrong. Fear of being successfully Willie Hortoned is why even people like Elizabeth Warren will go no further than "get rid of private prisons."

Finally, I think there is obviously a class dimension to all of this, and that prison in the US has very clearly been a way of managing the surplus population created by capitalism. The surplus population, written off as worthless because the private sector does not profitably employ it, obviously presents the most immediate threat to social order under capitalism. In fact, the entire growth of modern policing and prison as we know it basically happened as a way to manage this population.

"from where you're standing" is doing a lot of the leg work here. From where I'm standing there is a fundamental moral difference, which is why I specifically mentioned morals.

The problem here seems to be twofold, ideologically. You tried to pull some kind of gotcha (honestly, that's how I'm seeing it, I'm not sticking up for Cloud, it's more that it sticks out that you're trying a phrasing like you did - relating a personal desire for intense punishment to a general stance on a related topic), and you back that up with the fair and sensible position of prison abolition. Stringent, but I get it. If you believe in something strongly, and this is in no way a bad thing to believe in, in an argument there's less room for leeway. I'm half-rambling, half trying to show that I am definitely taking this in good faith. But here's the thing. Your ideal of prison abolition is idealistic. But you can't reconcile that idealism (within the current framework society - particularly US society - exists in) with the conflation of impulse and moral responsibility. If we're discussing the best of humanity, and how to improve humanity, in my mind you cannot conflate the two. Because any notion of prison abolition also only works with the best of intentions. As does any argument of any punishment for any individual (it's why humanity invented the concept).

I am aware of not only how the system works, but how progressive causes are both splintered within and co-opted from the outside. I get it. Any amount of leeway provides a vector for abuse. But so does reducing the avenues for containing genuinely abusive individuals. I have seen way too much pain, personally, inflicted by people with no remorse, to not entertain the notion that they're better off not a part of greater society. But likewise, we can't have the current (political and social) framework (r.e. imprisonment) that we do either.

I completely agree on your class analysis of the prison system in the US (read it before, by others as well). But we need to explore you lumping my position in with other attitudes you mentioned are widely-held. I wouldn't vote for someone based on a fear-based campaign relating to similarities with a political candidate (certainly not one as obvious and egregious as to have a racial dimension). If I feel like a glutton for punishment sometime, maybe I'll start a Corbyn thread. And no, not because I'm a diehard fan of the dude

The devil is in the details, as the phrase goes.

My baseline here is twofold: ten years for murder is short. Assuming she even serves a full term. We're not even talking a life for a life here. We're not talking retribution. I oppose the death penalty (I go back and forth on it, but 95% of the time oppose it). I certainly oppose it given the current state of major Western powers. I do not trust the system to apply it fairly. And the same goes for prison time. But likewise, there are people in society that cannot in any reasonable terms be rehabilitated. I'm not talking a huge percent. I couldn't even give a percent. But in an ideal world where the current prison system magically didn't exist, that would still be my belief. In that world, I wouldn't support the imprisonment of the cop for such a long time either. But that's still idealism talking.

I have to ask you: what good does a shorter prison time for a cop successfully prosecuted for killing an black guy do? Now, in the world that we're in? Because to enact real change, it's going to take more than being lax on individual offenders. It will take structural reform, and then you can treat such obvious offenders with less of a heavy handy. Fairness doesn't work both ways, right? Lesser time on this case would benefit other cops - it wouldn't benefit their victims. Being the better person in individual (especially high-profile) cases like this one isn't how you enact real change. In a different case, with a different power dynamic? It might do. Do not mistake my individual judgement for select events as being indicative of some greater status quo, please.

 

[Lexicus]

You tried to pull some kind of gotcha (honestly, that's how I'm seeing it, I'm not sticking up for Cloud, it's more that it sticks out that you're trying a phrasing like you did - relating a personal desire for intense punishment to a general stance on a related topic), and you back that up with the fair and sensible position of prison abolition.

It's a test. Do we have the courage of our convictions? Can we resist the urge to say "this jail sentence should be longer" when the person did something we all really don't like? If the answer is no I'm afraid our prospects of significantly reducing our prison population are not great.

 

[Gorbles]

It depends. How successfully can we argue the severity of this specific jail sentence? Like I asked: what good does a shorter time in this singular case do? If you want to discuss trends, you get into a lot of common problems around how to convince demographics of particular factoids. It's not Cloud or myself, or the views that we hold. I'm not going to be going out to people who don't share my particularly leftist ideologies and campaigning them for longer prison times. I'm not shifting (or contributing to the ongoing normalisation of) that particular punishment.

I'm sorry but I dislike "tests" in threads, on forums. They're much better in good faith in private.

I also dislike that you can't seem to separate out "things we don't like" with "things that have good reasoning for being more severe", because that conflation can absolutely be misused too. You could use that logic to keep more dangerous people on the streets - not being rehabilitated at all. Generic "you", hopefully goes without saying there!

 

[Lexicus]

Like I asked: what good does a shorter time in this singular case do?

What good does a longer sentence do?

I also dislike that you can't seem to separate out "things we don't like" with "things that have good reasoning for being more severe", because that conflation can absolutely be misused too. You could use that logic to keep more dangerous people on the streets - not being rehabilitated at all. Generic "you", hopefully goes without saying there!

What is the "reasoning" for imposing a more severe penalty in this case?

 

[Gorbles]

Keeps a violent offender out of reach of murdering again. This wasn't manslaughter, or battery, or provoked, or any other individual offense that should be evaluated separately. This was murder. From a police force with a history of similar problems.

But please, do answer my question. Answering it with a question isn't fair. You can't relate it generally - how would a shorter sentence (or no sentence!) help a Dallas police officer make reparations and the greater community recover from this tragedy?

 

[Samson]

What good does a longer sentence do?



What is the "reasoning" for imposing a more severe penalty in this case?

Deterrence. If the police think they will probably get away with it, and if they do not it will only be a token sentence they are more likely to do it again.

 

[Lexicus]

But please, do answer my question. Answering it with a question isn't fair. You can't relate it generally - how would a shorter sentence (or no sentence!) help a Dallas police officer make reparations and the greater community recover from this tragedy?

But I'm not actually arguing for a shorter sentence, I think the sentence she got is appropriate.

Deterrence. If the police think they will probably get away with it, and if they do not it will only be a token sentence they are more likely to do it again.

Keeps a violent offender out of reach of murdering again.

I suspected we'd see arguments like this. The fact that they exactly resemble the arguments of people who think mass incarceration is just fine sort of proves my point, don't you think?
The deterrent effect of prison is mostly a myth. There are studies showing that putting people in prison actually makes them more likely to reoffend. I also believe that she understands what she did is wrong and that her whole attitude before this incident needed to change; maybe you disagree, but I do not think she is likely to commit another murder and I don't believe she needs to be in prison to keep her potential victims safe. I suppose I could be entirely wrong about that, but we won't be finding out for years in any event.

 

[MaryKB]

I'm pretty sure I've heard that deterrence has been pretty much debunked.

I'm with @Lexicus on this one ... I don't see what lengthening her sentence accomplishes other than satisfaction at seeing someone punished, which like Lex says comes a lot from our culture of wanting to see people imprisoned. I don't feel it's appropriate to punish this one officer for all the crimes of police, I don't see how that's going to accomplish anything. And it's not like she's a serial killer or something, if there's a chance of rehabilitation (in her case probably extremely likely) then I feel that's the right thing to do, and hopefully can help correct this whole system.

Locking her up forever accomplishes nothing.

 

[Farm Boy]

10 years probably slakes the effect to be had from deterrence. But then there is equity, fairness, and justice for those not locked up and for those who have lost what is unbearable. But that is a field of vision some people have an enormous blind spot in the perception.

 

[Samson]

But I'm not actually arguing for a shorter sentence, I think the sentence she got is appropriate.





I suspected we'd see arguments like this. The fact that they exactly resemble the arguments of people who think mass incarceration is just fine sort of proves my point, don't you think?
The deterrent effect of prison is mostly a myth. There are studies showing that putting people in prison actually makes them more likely to reoffend. I also believe that she understands what she did is wrong and that her whole attitude before this incident needed to change; maybe you disagree, but I do not think she is likely to commit another murder and I don't believe she needs to be in prison to keep her potential victims safe. I suppose I could be entirely wrong about that, but we won't be finding out for years in any event.

It seems to me that there is a difference between the effect increasing sentences have on the general population, and those on the police. At the moment a police officer is much more likely to kill someone than a member of the general population, and when they do they are much less likely to be sent to prison, and for less time. They know this, and act accordingly.

I feel that with power comes responsibility, and we should hold those we give this power to to a higher standard than everyone else, to try and ensure that they act with the level of care that comes with the power we give them. At the moment it seems like the opposite.

10 years probably slakes the effect to be had from deterrence. But then there is equity, fairness, and justice for those not locked up and for those who have lost what is unbearable. But that is a field of vision some people have an enormous blind spot in the perception.

Had this been the other way round, and a male immigrant of colour had shot a white female american born police officer, do you think he would have got more or less than 10 years?