There are lot of people this morning saying that one of Jamie Bulger's killers being

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

People who stand in a longish queue at a coffee shop and then order 4 flat white, 3 lattes and 4 Americanos.

:rage:

Quite WES. How dare they enact their right to be in the same queue as you and make their perfectly lawful purchase. The next time I'm in the queue at Costa, just as I reach the till I'll scan the queue behind me and holler "any super entitled faux yanqui canuck knobheads wanna jump in before me here?"

[Monty92]

Because we measure both outcome and intent. Hence attempted murder is a lesser offence than murder.

In a moral sense you are right, there is little difference. You may drive home completely ****faced but without incident. Another night you may tip slightly over the limit and kill a child through no real fault of your own.

The former is a far worse offence but the latter involves a dead kid.

You are talking legalistically. I mentioned nothing of the law. I am asking why our ethical framework as a civilisation is skewed so irrationally.

[Burney]

So do you think the chap should have got nothing more than a few points on his license, or that people who crash onto the hard shoulder but kill no-one should be treated as harshly as if they'd caused a train crash?

That's where it gets tricky, huh?

Sure, but it's a tacit acknowledgement that the state sees it as its duty to exact a blood price from perpetrators. That seems to me to undermine the whole notion of equality under the law.

[Pokster]

Come now, p. Whoever heard of an asian taxi driver doing anything untoward with young childr....oh.

If he's going to come out as a perfect parent who would never take his eye off his young kids he shouldn't really post the opposite a few weeks before.

I would suggest all parents will lose site of their kids for a few seconds when out shopping etc

[Burney]

If he's going to come out as a perfect parent who would never take his eye off his young kids he shouldn't really post the opposite a few weeks before.

I would suggest all parents will lose site of their kids for a few seconds when out shopping etc

It was a bit more than a few seconds, to be fair. That's what I find extraordinary.

[Pokster]

It was a bit more than a few seconds, to be fair. That's what I find extraordinary.

I thought it was just a few seconds, then i should imagine you start looking in the area they were.. not sure how long before blind panic sets in

[Monty92]

Sure, but it's a tacit acknowledgement that the state sees it as its duty to exact a blood price from perpetrators. That seems to me to undermine the whole notion of equality under the law.

So you think the bloke who caused the train crash should have just got points on his license.

I'm not disagreeing. I think there's a strong argument for.

Then again, I don't believe in free will.

[redgunamo]

re-imprisoned for possession of child porn is evidence of why we should have the death pelanty.

This mystifies me. He was 11 when he committed murder. Are they actually suggesting we should've hanged an 11 year-old child?

In fairness, hanging is probably too good for an 11 year-old child who dropped his brand new Nintendo this morning

[Burney]

So you think the bloke who caused the train crash should have just got points on his license.

I'm not disagreeing. I think there's a strong argument for.

Then again, I don't believe in free will.

Oh, I think advances of our understanding of brain chemistry and the extent to which we are genetically pre-determined to be a certain way is going to make an absolute mess of notions or law, crime and punishment in years to come. After all, how do we fairly punish someone who is born with abnormal levels of aggression for being abnormally aggressive?

[Peter]

You are talking legalistically. I mentioned nothing of the law. I am asking why our ethical framework as a civilisation is skewed so irrationally.

Well our ethical framework is related to our legal one. THere is no denying that our collective view of something is influenced by its legality.

I have made a similar point on trips to Amsterdam on seeing friends openly going to prostitutes when they would never dream of doing so at home. As though the law somehow validates the process and makes it more morally acceptable.

I am not sure the different approach to the incident free/dead kid scenario is completely irrational. In one instance you have broken the law but nothing has happened. In the other you have killed a kid. If you wish to show that a certain behaviour is likely to cause a specific effect it is far easier to do so if it actually happens. I would argue the reaction to the dead kid is not essentially a moral one, its a reaction to the fact that you have killed a kid.