Right, and if during that struggle a police officer gets a bruise on their arm from an arm flapping around the person will get two years in prison. That's assault, but it's hardly in the same league as walking up and punching a police officer.
Agreed there. I do see a difference between something like "resisting arrest" (I think that's the official term they use or something similar) versus someone walking up and punching a Police Officer for no apparent reason.
If I were a Police Officer then I'd expect to encounter the former in the course of my duties. It's something that's not nice that's for sure, but it's to be expected in that line of work. Just like an electrician expects to be crawling about in hot roofs (and they get damn hot I can assure you - not fun) and a cleaner expects that they may have to clean up some unpleasant messes in a public toilet.
If that's not your thing then either do a different job or work your way into something that isn't patrolling the streets (police), get a job that doesn't involve wiring houses (electricians) or get a job cleaning offices (cleaner). Indeed that's exactly what many pursue. Police pursue internal opportunities to shift into different jobs within the police that involve little or no walking the streets. Electricians who stay in the trade long term tend to pursue roles in factories, utilities or become some sort of foreman, supervisor, estimator, manager etc which doesn't involve lying face down in a pile of fiberglass under a hot tin roof. And cleaners try to get the better jobs in many cases too if they're available - the team leader might still be cleaning but they'll be doing schools or offices and leave the public toilet contract to someone else.
But someone just walking up and punching, shooting etc a Police Officer is very different in my opinion. It's a crime in itself with the potential to cause serious injury. Whilst any sane Police Officer would have thought of the prospect that this could happen, it's not something they ought to be expected to live with. Just like a sparkie doesn't expect someone to walk up and push them off the ladder and a cleaner doesn't expect someone to come along and throw **** in their face. Anything like that is clearly an unprovoked assault and ought to be punished in my opinion.
For people my generation, I think you're completely wrong. There's a social stigma attached to it, and very little sympathy for those who do and get caught. I've said in these threads so many times, longer sentences don't reduce crime. There's overwhelming evidence of that.
You may be right about drink driving, I won't claim to know for sure. But I am pretty confident that for young people especially that "Essential Requirements = Drivers License" line on their employment contract is a factor. I supervise such people, and they know damn well that loss of license is grounds for dismissal on the grounds of not being able to perform their duties. How much it actually influences behaviour I'm not sure, but it would influence some I'd expect.
Mandatory sentencing will not care whether it's your first offence and you were provoked while taking your wife out for a night on the town, and usually you volunteer down at the homeless shelter on a Saturday night, you will still get the same sentence. These laws treat first time offenders, regardless of the circumstance of what took place, the same as repeat offenders. Like I said above, longer sentences don't reduce crime, the risk of getting caught does.
Agreed that there's an inherent problem with tough mandatory sentences for first time offenders which doesn't take account of circumstances. As a minimum, there ought to be a requirement for proof - eg if there's two people in a fight then one is likely acting in self defence and ought not be punished.
But I'd argue that it is the proabiltiy of being significantly punished, not the probability of being caught per se, which is an effective deterrent.
As an example, I periodically attend work meetings and park near the head office in order to do so. I park on the street, typically in a space with 2 hour parking limit. But suffice to say the prospect of having to pay a $35 fine for parking too long doesn't cause me to park 10 blocks away or use a commercial car park. Any fines are paid by the driver, not the employer, but let's be realistic. There's perhaps a 20% chance of being caught, so on average that's a $7 cost if the meeting runs longer than scheduled which won't occur on most occasions. The threat of a $35 fine at my personal expense is not a deterrent but it sure would be if the fine was $3500 in which case I'd find somewhere else to park, come out of the meeting and move the car after 2 hours or whatever.
Same with anything. If being caught means that a Police Officer tells me I've done the wrong thing and asks me to not do it again then that's not much of a deterrent since the few minutes spent talking to police is of no real consequence to me or anyone else and that applies even if there is decent chance (say 20%) of being caught. But if the consequence is a large fine, time in prison or a community service order then that's going to make any
sensible person think twice about committing that crime.
"Sensible" person is the key word here though, and I'd expect that your average puncher doesn't fit into the category of "sensible" such that this probably wouldn't work with this particular crime unless the odds of being caught are extremely high.