HARPER'S LAW MAKES NO SENSE AND WOULD BE UNJUST.

Let's imagine a situation.

I, a pensioner, pop into my local bank. I discover that another customer has had a heart attack and is being treated by a paramedic, having first been attended to by a nurse who'd been using the cash machine. A police officer, having seen the paramedic enter, had also come in to find out what was going on.

Moments later, 3 nasty oiks turn up, brandishing knives and guns and demand that the various cashiers hand over all the money in their tills. Of course, the police officer interferes with their plans and he is assisted by the paramedic, nurse and myself, who join together in confronting the would-be robbers. One of us is killed as a result.

According to the suggested "Harper's Law" if it's the police officer, nurse or paramedic who dies, the miscreant would receive a more harsh sentence than if it was me. That is not justice and demonstrates a fatal flaw in the notion that certain professions should have greater protection under the law than the rest of society.

The correct way to deal with criminals is to give them penalties and sentences that offer genuine punishment and deterrence. The current practice of releasing offenders part-way through prison sentences makes headline stories of seemingly harsh penalties - 30 years, life etc., - misleading and often meaningless. Placing supposed rehabilitation above retribution may make sense in some cases but it does not in more serious ones. The nonsense of 'victim impact statements' is nothing but a sop to the 'woke' generation and those who love their 'day in court'. None of it is necessary and none of it should be part of our legal process.

Assault is assault, murder is murder. The sentences handed down to offenders should be appropriate to the offence, regardless of the societal standing of the victim. A vicious assault on an elderly person during a robbery is surely no different to an assault on a police officer in the performance of their duties - or should we also have a "Pensioners' Law", providing for harsher sentences for those found guilty of crimes against the elderly ?

It is nonsensical to try to segment society for the purposes of determining criminal severity and sentencing. Once it starts, where does it end ?