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

[Monty92]

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.

The bond is real, but it's mainly down to the fact they're cute. The same reason we'll feel sad if we see a dead cat, but not a dead ant.

I don't really buy into the whole kin selection stuff. I mean, I'm sure the theory is scientifically sound, but it pales into insignificance as soon as your kid starts whining.

[Peter]

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

Because a kid is dead and you killed him. Its the issue you first raised, the difference between intent and outcome.

Should attempted murder be a longer sentence than manslaughter? Is it worse to try and kill someone and fail, or to kill them by mistake when you only meant to hurt them a bit?

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

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

Very difficult one for a reintroductionist to argue against that. Almost as if we need a third level of proof. We have 'balance of probability' for civil law, 'beyond reasonable doubt' for criminal law'. We might have to introduce 'absolutely and irrefutably guilty without any hint of question'* wherever the death penalty is being considered.

* or Irish of course

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

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.

I'm beginning to see what you mean about her.

[Burney]

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.

But the fact that you see hundreds of people doing it is proof that it is tolerated. It is tolerated, but when someone does it with dire consequences, condign punishments ensue. However, it's clear that those condign punishments aren't stopping people doing it.

[Peter]

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.

Right. So the ethical aspect should be determined solely by actions (driving pissed). However, the legal aspect will also punish the outcome.

In other words, you are just as big a **** whether the kid dies or not but if he does you are a **** in prison.

[Monty92]

Because a kid is dead and you killed him. Its the issue you first raised, the difference between intent and outcome.

Should attempted murder be a longer sentence than manslaughter? Is it worse to try and kill someone and fail, or to kill them by mistake when you only meant to hurt them a bit?

Wait, let me think about that...

[Peter]

The bond is real, but it's mainly down to the fact they're cute. The same reason we'll feel sad if we see a dead cat, but not a dead ant.

I don't really buy into the whole kin selection stuff. I mean, I'm sure the theory is scientifically sound, but it pales into insignificance as soon as your kid starts whining.

I understand. THe problem is that my cats are cute even when they are whining. Also, you can just tell them to **** off and they **** off.

I am guessing this doesnt work/isnt the done thing when it comes to kids.

[Peter]

Yes, of course it should be

i would agree, but why......

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?

Which is the bigger danger to the public?

[Monty92]

i would agree, but why......

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?

Which is the bigger danger to the public?

I assumed you meant involuntary manslaughter...