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

[Monty92]

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

As a parent, I am genuinely staggered that more people don't kill their own kids, given how many emotionally fragile people we know there are around. There is no greater provocation to violence than a small, whining child.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

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.

Society's response to needless loss of life should always be draconian. I see hundreds of people yapping into their mobiles while driving, even when negotiating roundabouts for God's sake. When they career into pedestrians and kill them then they should be treated harshly if only to signal to others that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

[Peter]

As a parent, I am genuinely staggered that more people don't kill their own kids, given how many emotionally fragile people we know there are around. There is no greater provocation to violence than a small, whining child.

I had always assumed that this is why people go on and on about how much you will love your kids, how the bond is unlike any other. They are really just trying to give themselves, and you, a very good reason for not killing the little *******s.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

As a parent, I am genuinely staggered that more people don't kill their own kids, given how many emotionally fragile people we know there are around. There is no greater provocation to violence than a small, whining child.

Wait until they turn into big whining children

[Luis Anaconda]

As a parent, I am genuinely staggered that more people don't kill their own kids, given how many emotionally fragile people we know there are around. There is no greater provocation to violence than a small, whining child.

How about most of the people I've been surrounded by in the Emirates on my past few visits?

[Peter]

Society's response to needless loss of life should always be draconian. I see hundreds of people yapping into their mobiles while driving, even when negotiating roundabouts for God's sake. When they career into pedestrians and kill them then they should be treated harshly if only to signal to others that this behaviour will not be tolerated.

As long as they signalled at the roundabout I think we can forgive them the odd phone call.

[TheCurly]

Your first paragraph there is almost verbatim what my younger more liberal self frequently argued whenever the death penalty was discussed. Given it is nigh impossible for most people to take their revenge I figure bollócks, let's just hang the ****s.

And none of this squeamish lethal injection nonsense. The grim placement of the noose; the terrifying pause before the pull of the lever; the audible snap of the neck and the occasional decapitation when the hangman has miscalculated the drop distance. An execution should be dramatic b.

All very well and good Herb
Doesn't help if the poor **** is innocent

[Monty92]

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.

But if it is not a moral reaction, why should it manifest at all in the way we treat the perpetrator?

[Peter]

All very well and good Herb
Doesn't help if the poor **** is innocent

THe brilliant Priti Patel has the perfect solution to this particular problem. She calls it the 'burden of proof'. Apparently, as long as we make sure that you have to prove somebody is guilty then no mistakes will ever be made.

[Burney]

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.

But you haven't 'killed a kid'. A kid has died as the culmination of a set of decisions and random circumstances - none of which was taken with the intention of killing a kid. However, they might just as easily have not culminated in any such outcome. That to me seems highly significant from the perspective of moral guilt.

Of course you're right. The law is also there to make examples of people who break it with dire - albeit unintended - consequences. It is also there to be seen to be done. Those things are important from a societal point of view, of course, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with ethics.