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

[Burney]

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? :rubchin:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

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? :rubchin:

our collective cajones.

Didn't have you down as a bleeding heart whiney liberal b

[Burney]

our collective cajones.

Didn't have you down as a bleeding heart whiney liberal b

I must admit I waver on the death penalty thing. I can see the arguments for and against, but am ultimately repulsed by many of its advocates' apparent bloodlust. I suppose that I ultimately am sufficiently squeamish and liberal to feel that it just isn't the sort of thing a civilised society ought to be doing. :shrug:

Obviously, I make an exception for people who don't indicate at roundabouts. I would personally shoot them in the back of the neck and sleep peacefully.

[SWv2]

I must admit I waver on the death penalty thing. I can see the arguments for and against, but am ultimately repulsed by many of its advocates' apparent bloodlust. I suppose that I ultimately am sufficiently squeamish and liberal to feel that it just isn't the sort of thing a civilised society ought to be doing. :shrug:

Obviously, I make an exception for people who don't indicate at roundabouts. I would personally shoot them in the back of the neck and sleep peacefully.

As a punishment it does fit the crime on occasion all the same. Your female sense of squeamishness does not come into it as you don’t have to stand and watch it, a public beheading as such.

Fúck them, ****s at the bar ordering coffee and then paying by card.

[Monty92]

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? :rubchin:

There is certainly a far stronger moral argument for hanging his parents.

Genuinely.

[Burney]

As a punishment it does fit the crime on occasion all the same. Your female sense of squeamishness does not come into it as you don’t have to stand and watch it, a public beheading as such.

Fúck them, ****s at the bar ordering coffee and then paying by card.

Oh, yes. People who order coffee in pubs would definitely get the old 'Genickschuss' as well. But that's pure, legitimate fury. It's the cold-blooded judicial type of killing I find distasteful.

More seriously, the aptness of the punishment is less important to me than what it does to the society and people who endorse it.

[Burney]

There is certainly a far stronger moral argument for hanging his parents.

Genuinely.

Who? Bulger's or Venables'?

[Sir C]

As a punishment it does fit the crime on occasion all the same. Your female sense of squeamishness does not come into it as you don’t have to stand and watch it, a public beheading as such.

Fúck them, ****s at the bar ordering coffee and then paying by card.

Paying by card can be quicker than with cash these days. Yesterday I bought something for £1, had no change and would have had to split a 20. TAP with a card, job done.

[SWv2]

Oh, yes. People who order coffee in pubs would definitely get the old 'Genickschuss' as well. But that's pure, legitimate fury. It's the cold-blooded judicial type of killing I find distasteful.

More seriously, the aptness of the punishment is less important to me than what it does to the society and people who endorse it.

The death penalty is alive and kicking (as such) in the USA and there is a very rounded society.

[SWv2]

Paying by card can be quicker than with cash these days. Yesterday I bought something for £1, had no change and would have had to split a 20. TAP with a card, job done.

If you read my proposal you will see I am not suggesting we outlay the practice of tapping.

Apology accepted.

Ftr I don’t tap.

[Monty92]

Who? Bulger's or Venables'?

Errr, Venables.

[Monty92]

Paying by card can be quicker than with cash these days. Yesterday I bought something for £1, had no change and would have had to split a 20. TAP with a card, job done.

I've recently got Apple Pay on my phone which in theory should allow me to use my phone to tap into public transport, pay for things, etc. I'm not sure why but I've not yet summoned the courage to use it.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I must admit I waver on the death penalty thing. I can see the arguments for and against, but am ultimately repulsed by many of its advocates' apparent bloodlust. I suppose that I ultimately am sufficiently squeamish and liberal to feel that it just isn't the sort of thing a civilised society ought to be doing. :shrug:

Obviously, I make an exception for people who don't indicate at roundabouts. I would personally shoot them in the back of the neck and sleep peacefully.

Good Lord! I find myself in a position actually to the right of AWIMB's swivel-eyed-loon-in-chief.

I hold that certain crimes are so unforgivably heinous that only the chop will do. My critics at he dinner tables of leafy Buckinghamshire point at that it is a retributionist ideal that will always fail intellectual scrutiny and I agree wholeheartedly. The need for retribution, on those who have callously murdered your children for example, is primal and innate and is the seed of justice itself.

I doubt that the revolting bellicose **** Mladic would be bellowing from the dock in The Hague if he faced the rope.

[Burney]

Errr, Venables.

Oh, that's alright. I did think it was a bit harsh on Bulger's dad.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

Oh, that's alright. I did think it was a bit harsh on Bulger's dad.

Hmmmm ... he is a scouse b

[Burney]

The death penalty is alive and kicking (as such) in the USA and there is a very rounded society.

It's not really, though, is it? It's fair to say that their adherence to the death penalty might also make them a wee bit callous in other areas of their society, don't you think? For instance...

798

[Monty92]

Oh, that's alright. I did think it was a bit harsh on Bulger's dad.

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.

[Burney]

Good Lord! I find myself in a position actually to the right of AWIMB's swivel-eyed-loon-in-chief.

I hold that certain crimes are so unforgivably heinous that only the chop will do. My critics at he dinner tables of leafy Buckinghamshire point at that it is a retributionist ideal that will always fail intellectual scrutiny and I agree wholeheartedly. The need for retribution, on those who have callously murdered your children for example, is primal and innate and is the seed of justice itself.

I doubt that the revolting bellicose **** Mladic would be bellowing from the dock in The Hague if he faced the rope.

I agree about the desire for personal justice, but that is personal. Frankly, if someone takes personal vengeance for the murder of a child and kills the perpetrator, I for one would generally applaud them and hope they would be treated leniently by the judicial system. That, as you say, is a very natural right of justice that exists outside the law.

However, once you forego that option and leave it up to the state to enact justice on your behalf, you can basically fùck off as far as I'm concerned. At that point, your feelings no longer have anything to do with anything. It's just cold, dispassionate law.

[Peter]

As a punishment it does fit the crime on occasion all the same. Your female sense of squeamishness does not come into it as you don’t have to stand and watch it, a public beheading as such.

Fúck them, ****s at the bar ordering coffee and then paying by card.

I blame the pub for selling coffee. If you offer ****ery, you attract ****s.

For paying by card, see Sir C's excellent point below. THe only reason I tap in a pub is precisely because it is quicker. I like to keep the service moving, for everyone's sakes.

[Burney]

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.

[Monty92]

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.

[Peter]

I agree about the desire for personal justice, but that is personal. Frankly, if someone takes personal vengeance for the murder of a child and kills the perpetrator, I for one would generally applaud them and hope they would be treated leniently by the judicial system. That, as you say, is a very natural right of justice that exists outside the law.

However, once you forego that option and leave it up to the state to enact justice on your behalf, you can basically fùck off as far as I'm concerned. At that point, your feelings no longer have anything to do with anything. It's just cold, dispassionate law.

Precisely. The worst road to go down is to confuse justice with vengeance. In this we separate justice in society from justice in the individual. We also separate justice (the notion) from law (the process).

The greater argument for capital punishment, or at least the most logical, is the notion of deterrence. Unfortunately, this doesnt work, particularly at the level of crime where the greatest support for capital punishment exists- treason, drug lords, etc. Those involved in these actions live their lives under a death sentence in their professions. A government rope isnt going to scare them.

[World's End Stella]

As a punishment it does fit the crime on occasion all the same. Your female sense of squeamishness does not come into it as you don’t have to stand and watch it, a public beheading as such.

Fúck them, ****s at the bar ordering coffee and then paying by card.

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

:rage:

[Pokster]

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.

Yes of course you do :rolleyes: what about leaving them in a taxi while you dash back to the house???

[Burney]

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.

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

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.

[Peter]

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.

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.

[Burney]

Precisely. The worst road to go down is to confuse justice with vengeance. In this we separate justice in society from justice in the individual. We also separate justice (the notion) from law (the process).

The greater argument for capital punishment, or at least the most logical, is the notion of deterrence. Unfortunately, this doesnt work, particularly at the level of crime where the greatest support for capital punishment exists- treason, drug lords, etc. Those involved in these actions live their lives under a death sentence in their professions. A government rope isnt going to scare them.


Even its advocates don't bother with the deterrence argument anymore. In 18th Century London, most people who were hanged or committed capital crimes had witnessed executions themselves. Did it deter them? Did it fück as like. America is the only civilised society left with the death penalty and I don't notice their murder rates dropping significantly.

For me, the better arguments are recidivism (an awful lot of killers get out and kill again) and finance. Why should the taxpayer be burdened with the millions it costs to keep a murderer alive for decades when a quick trip through the trapdoor would settle their hash cheaply and quickly?

[Monty92]

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.

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?

[Burney]

Yes of course you do :rolleyes: what about leaving them in a taxi while you dash back to the house???

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

[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? :rubchin:

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.

[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.

[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 :shrug:

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...

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

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.

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.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

"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

[Burney]

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.

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.

[redgunamo]

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.

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.

[Burney]

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.

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.

[Peter]

I assumed you meant involuntary manslaughter...

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?

[Monty92]

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.

May I ask, given your apparent distaste for contraception and termination, how you ensure you don't inadvertently augment the brood?

[Peter]

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.

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.

[Burney]

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?

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.

[Peter]

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.

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 :(

[Monty92]

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?

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally equal to a man who unsuccessfully punches someone with the intent to kill him.

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally worse than a man who punches someone without intent to kill them, but kills them anyway.

How the law treats each case should be informed by, but not not necessarily follow, these rules of thumb, for the reasons Berni articulates elsewhere in this thread.

[Peter]

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.

If we are protecting society from his murderous intent I would rather be protected from the chap who is good at it, but I take your point.

You could also argue that the guy who ****ed it up has learned his lesson and is less likely to **** it up next time.

[Luis Anaconda]

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally equal to a man who unsuccessfully punches someone with the intent to kill him.

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally worse than a man who punches someone without intent to kill them, but kills them anyway.
Confucius?

[Sir C]

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally equal to a man who unsuccessfully punches someone with the intent to kill him.

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally worse than a man who punches someone without intent to kill them, but kills them anyway.

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

[redgunamo]

May I ask, given your apparent distaste for contraception and termination, how you ensure you don't inadvertently augment the brood?

The wife's people, medical and otherwise, advised her to declare her innings at four boys and two girls, which was fair enough, I thought. Anyway the final tally was embellished somewhat by the inclusion of twins; redgunamos never have twins.

[Peter]

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally equal to a man who unsuccessfully punches someone with the intent to kill him.

A man who successfully punches someone with the intent to kill them is morally worse than a man who punches someone without intent to kill them, but kills them anyway.

How the law treats each case should be informed by, not not necessarily follow, these rules of thumb.

Yes. But what about the man who unsuccessfully punches someone with intent to kill and the man who punches someone without intent but kills them anyway?

[TheCurly]

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

The BEST punch I ever threw in my whole life was during a football fracas.I didn't mean to kill him but I deffo wanted to hurt him.I swear to wee baby Jebus it was a real beaut.Caught the **** right on the chin and down he went :proud:
Only problem was the fúcker got up again :-(

[SWv2]

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

I will quote you this just before the moment of reckoning, pal.

[Burney]

If we are protecting society from his murderous intent I would rather be protected from the chap who is good at it, but I take your point.

You could also argue that the guy who ****ed it up has learned his lesson and is less likely to **** it up next time.

Quite. And, of course, this is where the capital punishment thing becomes interesting. After all, as you say, a chap who attempts murder but fails will come out of prison while still relatively young as a person who is still capable of and willing to kill. I could make a good public safety case for capital punishment that that man should be turned off now because he's demonstrated that he has that club in his bag and it's better to end him before he actually succeeds. That to me would be more logical than only executing the successful killer.

[Monty92]

Yes. But what about the man who unsuccessfully punches someone with intent to kill and the man who punches someone without intent but kills them anyway?

Intent to kill is morally worse than no intent to kill, regardless of consequences.

[Burney]

A man who tries to kill someone with one punch probably has a vastly over-inflated sense of his capabilities.

Yes...or he is all too well aware of his capabilities.

[Viva Prat Vegas]

"Yes. But what about the man who unsuccessfully punches someone with intent to kill and the man who punches someone without intent but kills them anyway?"

The formers 'failure' gets him off the hook
The latter is (is he ?) less of a danger to a population which he has reduced by 1 and is malleable enough to have learnt a tragic lesson

What if the former has a history of failures (the 2nd time) ?
One 'free strike' and you are out (or 'In') ?

[Burney]

Intent to kill is morally worse than no intent to kill, regardless of consequences.

What if the person you intend to kill is a baddie?

[Sir C]

What if the person you intend to kill is a baddie?

"What would you do if a German soldier was raping you sister?"

"I cootn't do nuffink sarge, could I, 'cos she's in Peckham and I'm stuck out 'ere in the bleedin' desert."

Dear Spike.

[Sir C]

The BEST punch I ever threw in my whole life was during a football fracas.I didn't mean to kill him but I deffo wanted to hurt him.I swear to wee baby Jebus it was a real beaut.Caught the **** right on the chin and down he went :proud:
Only problem was the fúcker got up again :-(

It's quite the gutter when they take your best shot and then get up again. :hehe:

[Monty92]

What if the person you intend to kill is a baddie?

Mitigation can certainly reduce moral graveness, yes.

[Burney]

Mitigation can certainly reduce moral graveness, yes.

On a more serious note, what is intent? On a purely primal level, if you punch someone in anger, in the moment of doing it, theres every chance you do want them dead - on at least a notional level. Is that 'intent to kill'? How do we make windows into men's souls to make such a fine judgment?

[Monty92]

On a more serious note, what is intent? On a purely primal level, if you punch someone in anger, in the moment of doing it, theres every chance you do want them dead - on at least a notional level. Is that 'intent to kill'? How do we make windows into men's souls to make such a fine judgment?

Indeed. But by punching them rather than, say, grabbing a nearby implement and stabbing them in the neck, you are showing a level of restraint that should reflect favourably on your moral judgement.

[Peter]

Intent to kill is morally worse than no intent to kill, regardless of consequences.

Ok, so that is your moral stance. How should it be punished?

[Peter]

On a more serious note, what is intent? On a purely primal level, if you punch someone in anger, in the moment of doing it, theres every chance you do want them dead - on at least a notional level. Is that 'intent to kill'? How do we make windows into men's souls to make such a fine judgment?

You can see why the whole Stokes situation hasn't been resolve yet ;)

[Monty92]

Ok, so that is your moral stance. How should it be punished?

Impossible to answer. I think our moral framework needs to be fine-tuned first.

We can start by acknowledging that free will is an illusion.

[redgunamo]

On a more serious note, what is intent? On a purely primal level, if you punch someone in anger, in the moment of doing it, theres every chance you do want them dead - on at least a notional level. Is that 'intent to kill'? How do we make windows into men's souls to make such a fine judgment?

I gather legal people bring things like conspiracy into it.

[taxman10]

My Coutts card doesn’t have contactless, so I get to annoy people in the queue twice

[redgunamo]

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.

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.