Who? Bulger's or Venables'?Originally Posted by Monty92
Who? Bulger's or Venables'?
Errr, Venables.
Oh, that's alright. I did think it was a bit harsh on Bulger's dad.
Hmmmm ... he is a scouse b
I don't know anything about Bulger's parents, other than the fact that his mum was distracted when he got snatched, which does seem rather unforgivable. I mean, you can sometimes lose track of the movements of a 4 or 5-year-old, but a two-year-old? Nah, you *always* have one eye on a two-year-old when out in public.
Exactly. I remember kids at that age and the idea that you could lose track of them for more than a few seconds without going into panic mode seems unthinkable to me.
However, I'm sure her conscience has punished the poor woman enough for the last 24 years, so I'm not going to kick her.
On a related note, people generally speaking are weird when it comes to ethics. If someone moderately drink drives and gets away with it, they'll be considered little more than naughty scamps. yet if someone moderately drink drives and kills a kid, the opprobrium goes through the roof. Why? The 'crimes' were identical on a moral level.
Yes, I've always felt dubious about the principle of scaling punishment on the basis of its consequences. It's always seemed to punish bad luck to an unfair degree. I remember that chap who fell asleep at the wheel a few years ago and somehow managed to cause the Selby train crash. He got five years. If he'd given into sleep a few minutes earlier, there's every chance he might just have veered onto the hard shoulder and gone up the bank. Result? A few points on his licence, maybe. The disparity between those punishments for essentially the same offence has always seemed arbitrary and unfair to me.
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.
It's not about ethics, I think. It's simply that we're a nation of pirates, blackguards, violent drunks and scoundrels. And, most importantly, proud of it.
So when such questions arise, the major part of us will instinctively side with the weaker, more vulnerable party, the underdog.
"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."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote