buctootim

Have they run out of wheels?

Still got no idea what he actually does though. Anything from scouring the world for multi million pouind signings to looking after first year academy arrivals. Wouldnt have thought he has the experiemce at 30 to be a good enough judge of talent.

So has HCDAJFU and 'Nigel says' and MLT threads. Shall we all pack up and go home cause you're bored or shall we leave those who want to participate to do just that?

What I described was manslaughter - but without the benefit of cameras and independent witnesses to the actual killing interpretation of what happened and the motives for it are at the mercy of the police, judge and jury- they may decide the evidence points toward murder. It may or may not be accurate in any one case. If however you have a pattern of behaviour that is more damning. .

That might be true if there was a cast iron way of proving intent. Was someone murdered or did they die accidentally during a fight? Was someone accidentally hit by a car during an attempt to get away after a fight or deliberately murdered? were they poisoned to make them ill and get back at them, or to kill? As I said earlier, imo you are entitled to benefit of the doubt over intent if you get into a bad situation once. Being in that situation several times proves you are a danger to society.

Not if the prosecution decided to prove prior intent - maybe her sister and friends said she would never have pulled a knife, or claiming Mrs Duck was planning to leave her husband, or there were some iffy google searches.

Infanticide by the mother is treated differently (more leniently) in the UK than in the US.

How about if she burnt the dinner, you called her a dozy cow, she whacked you, you whacked her, she pulled out a knife, you tried to grab it, she slashed at you, you punched her hard in the face, she fell back and smashed her head on the granite worktop. Death penalty for you?

Its not inconsistent. There is a clear difference between somebody deliberately taking aim and shooting 70 people over a several hour time frame and somebody who kills during a drunken street fight or kills their baby when you cant prove beyond reasonable doubt that she meant to do it.

Pass the port.

Andy, you've got an opion and an intellect to back it with. You're already leading them 2-1. Playing the age card is weak.

Stayed there one night recently. Seriously dont think I could handle even a year there.

I would probably sentence the Norwegian to death too, though by lethal injection. But generally I would say first offences you get the benefit of doubt that it was a momentary loss of control, or a freak unintended consequence. The three strikes rule deals with that by showing persistence of behaviour, the failure of incaceration to alter behaviour and guilt beyond all reasonable doubt (the odds of three unjust guilty verdicts are astronomical).

Dont think anyone is disputing that. The question is, do you have the death penalty at all, and if you do would you use it for crimes like this?

What about if one of the Fridl kids who lived in the dungeon all their childhood turns out to have a personality disorder as a result and murders someone. Death penalty?

No. You are supposed to think that even 11 year old girls commit brutal double murders. She was released aged 24, had a daughter and hasnt re-offended. Would you have killed her?

The good old days of 1968. http://www.murderuk.com/child_killers_mary_bell.html

You cant prevent it Alpine. The fact they tried to cover up the crime shows they were afraid of the consequences and the force of the law - but it still happened anyway. A death penalty would have made no difference, other than retribution for outraged people like you.

There are some people who are so violent and anti social the rest of us would be better off with them not living, but I wouldn't put these people in that category. People can and do get into situations where all normal self control and reasoning leaves them. I think you have to give first time offenders the benefit of some doubt and leniency. Its the serial serious violent offenders I would be prepared to consider for the death penalty - along the three strikes and you're out line. Commiting very serious violent offences on three separate occcasions should lead to a capital sentence imo.

I liked him too. Bit random sometimes but often funny and always different. Just what you want as part of the mix on a forum really.

He's much less effusive than in interviews six months or a year ago. Cant work out whether he is a bit down or just quietly determined.

I agree. Its practically impossible to get a totally fair comparison between life in rich countries and poor, hot climates and cold etc. Thought provoking though.

Actually it does, it states that in the article.

About 3 million people in the UK are amongst the richest 1% of people globally. If you are single and take home more than £1,820 per month then you are among them. The world's 'middle class' - those on median incomes - live on £67 per month. All this is according to a World Bank economist. Obviously you can argue about the numbers round the margins, but interesting research nonetheless. http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/04/news/economy/world_richest/index.htm?iid=GM

I think there is, literally. England & Wales are different to Scotland and NI. For all the turbulence and hype around the case over many years people have forgotten they were 16 when the murder took place. 14 years for a 16 year old seems about right, but is lenient for them as grown men.