Well it would be astonishing if one custodial sentence caused all illegal mobile use to cease immediately but, as with drinking and driving, the message will seep into the collective conscious and the behaviour will become unacceptable. Something you would be ashamed to tell your friends and family you had been caught doing.Originally Posted by Burney
"Who would you rather bump into down a dark alley- the guy who loves a bit of murder but is clearly **** at it or the bloke who is so good at it that he ends up killing people without even trying? "
Neither
One has the intent
The other has the accidental skill to off me
Given the outcome with the latter I would say that 'achievement'/'consequences' is equal to intent legalistically
10 characters? Pile of cund.
Sure. We are essentially talking about the difference between a high-flown ethical notion of justice and the grim, workaday and entirely pragmatic operation of law as a means to control a civil society. My point is that they have little or nothing to do with one another.
That's what the pill, and abortion, were invented for, I think; for those of fellows that don't have the money and/or the temperament for it.
"Plenty of strikers can score goals," he said, gesturing to the famous old stands casting shadows around us.
"But a lot have found it difficult wearing the number 9 shirt for The Arsenal."
More difficult. The drink driving thing played on deep-seated puritanical notions of shame about drinking and intoxication in this country. Even now, there are very different moral attitudes to drink-driving depending on where you go. It's harder to induce similar levels of shame about mobile phone use.
Look at it this way. With murder and attempted murder we group the two crimes by intent (to kill) but sentence them according to effect (death or otherwise). With murder and manslaughter we group the effect (death) but sentence according to intent.
So we can all agree it is worse to intentionally kill someone (intent and effect) than to do it by accident (effect alone). We also seem to agree that it is worse to intentionally kill someone than to try and **** it up (intent but not effect). The grey area is whether attempted murder (intent) is worse than manslaughter (unintended effect).
So what Do we deem more serious, the intent or the effect?
May I ask, given your apparent distaste for contraception and termination, how you ensure you don't inadvertently augment the brood?
In operation they have little to do with each other, quite deliberately. In practice, as mentioned earlier, many people take the law as a moral yardstick, at least in the vaguely moral sense that if the law deems something wrong then it probably is. For some individuals this is an effective deterrent beyond the threat of punishment. For the rest of us there is the risk of punishment.
Well if you regard law as a means to protect society, one could argue that the attempted murderer should serve just as long as the successful killer. After all, the person has demonstrated a willingness and desire to kill, which makes them no less dangerous to the public at large than if they'd succeeded. There, it seems to me, is where our insistence on consequence-based sentencing falls down badly.
I went on a speed awareness course (twice) and the guy attempted to draw a moral parallel with stealing (I would argue you are stealing somebody's safety) and then drink driving (you wouldn't endanger someone by drink driving, why do it through excessive speed).
It was the only point where it threatened to get interesting.
Three hours and they didnt even offer us any speed
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote