Sentencing question

Why is shooting an on-duty police officer considered 67% worse (35 years’ minimum sentence) than stabbing an unarmed lawyer (21 years’ minimum)?

I hope it’s to do with the use of guns, the extent of previous convictions and the defendants’ lack of mitigating personal factors, rather than any kind of bizarre fetishisation of the police as better than the rest of us…

One thought on “Sentencing question

  1. Matthew says:

    I think the idea is that the police have to be prepared to put themselves at the risk of being murdered, whereas normal people don’t. So they need the protection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>