IAN Palmer's letter (October 25) raises a number of contentious issues.
Does he consider the life of a serving police officer to be of more value than any other human being? Are the grief and loss suffered by the families and friends of murder victims who were not serving police officers any less than the grief and loss suffered by survivors of a murdered police officer? Would your readers be further appalled to learn that there are far more convicted murderers walking the streets than those connected with the cases cited by Mr Palmer (all murders of police officers)? Should a life sentence for murder only ever actually mean life if the victims are "any official working for the good of society"?
I do not hold with any of the above points.
Nobody questions that, in 1966, Harry Roberts committed a brutal and heinous crime in cold blood, but he was caught, convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced accordingly by the sitting judge, who stated, during sentencing, that the term of imprisonment should not be less than 30 years. When Harry Roberts is released, he will have served some 48 years in prison - more than half a life based on current life expectancy statistics - and he will not be set free at the first time of asking, as it is widely reported that previous parole appeals were rejected.
Anybody who joins the police force, I assume, is made aware of the dangers associated with the job, and is nowadays provided with appropriate personal protective equipment, as circumstances dictate. It should not, however, be forgotten that many joining men and women are aware, either prior to joining or on joining, of the competitive salary, early retirement and gilt-edged pension that the job offers - very attractive indeed, and the sole reason cited by two serving police officer acquaintances of mine for joining in the first place, or sticking with the job.
Should their lives be considered of greater importance and value than other murder victims? Not for me - their lives are equally as precious but no more so than any other human being.
David Campbell,
Atholl Crescent,
Paisley.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article