NO! Not in my name you don't

13»

Comments

  • Nuggs
    Nuggs Posts: 1,804
    What those boys did was appalling and it's right that they should have been punished. I disagree with the assertions that they were too young to understand. Other kids don't do this type of thing; they have an understanding of right and wrong.

    However, justice should only be administered through the proper channels.

    I agree with the protection of Venable's identity; we should not leave punishment as a matter for members of the public to take into their own hands.

    Without new identification, Venables' life will be at risk. We may agree that he deserves whatever he gets, but punishment outside the law is not right in a civilised society.
  • blackpanther
    blackpanther Posts: 221
    Nuggs wrote:
    What those boys did was appalling and it's right that they should have been punished. I disagree with the assertions that they were too young to understand. Other kids don't do this type of thing; they have an understanding of right and wrong.

    However, justice should only be administered through the proper channels.

    I agree with the protection of Venable's identity; we should not leave punishment as a matter for members of the public to take into their own hands.

    Without new identification, Venables' life will be at risk. We may agree that he deserves whatever he gets, but punishment outside the law is not right in a civilised society.


    but hes put hiumself ouside of the law hasnt he?
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    spen666 wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    simonaspinall wrote:
    But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

    In a word, cobblers.

    Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.


    so you admit you dont understand criminal law?

    Yes I admit it.

    I was giving an opinion - that's OK with you, right? :D


    Expressing an opinion on something you admit to knowing nothing about seems to me to be the actions of a rather foolish person

    I wasn't expressing an opinion on Law, I was expressing my opion on intent.

    I don't have to know the law to state that IN MY OPINION, intent doesn't count. Murder is murder.
  • blackpanther
    blackpanther Posts: 221
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    spen666 wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    simonaspinall wrote:
    But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

    In a word, cobblers.

    Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.


    so you admit you dont understand criminal law?

    Yes I admit it.

    I was giving an opinion - that's OK with you, right? :D


    Expressing an opinion on something you admit to knowing nothing about seems to me to be the actions of a rather foolish person

    I wasn't expressing an opinion on Law, I was expressing my opion on intent.

    I don't have to know the law to state that IN MY OPINION, intent doesn't count. Murder is murder.

    +1
  • PresumingEd
    PresumingEd Posts: 82
    Intent most definitely does count: it is not murder if there is no "mens rea" (i.e. intent to kill to cause grevious bodily harm).

    This is such a fundamental, basic tenet of law (pretty much throughout the world) that is is one of the few things I was taught during three years supposedly studying for a law degree that I have actually managed to remember.

    By the way, I fully agree with the decision to protect the identity of any person whose safety cannot be otherwise assured, even if that lack of safety is down to them having committed a horrendous crime. I also agreed with the Children's Commissioner when she stated that Venables and Thompson should not have been tried as adults; that was a political decision swayed by tabloid outrage and should not have been permitted in a supposedly civilised country
  • claash
    claash Posts: 145
    If his upbringing was so terrible, then the state failed him a first time: He should have been in care from a very early age: (maybe not the best solution but perhaps preferable).

    If he didn't know right from wrong then school failed him as well as his parents and the society around him. there is always more than one influencer in a childs life.

    Tried in an adult court, though only a child: for the severity of the crime no doubt a sensible if contoversial decision.

    Does he deserve a new identity: probably not. But the state really shouldn't fail him again by not protecting him from vigilanties.

    No doubt his name will appear again in the future to haunt us, and as long of those of us who were old enough (over the age of 10 probably) to remember the Bulger case are still breathing and with it, it will always inflame the public.

    should he be released in the future: Needs very careful consideration, and probably not for a very long time. He has made several conscious choices that have lead to this type of life.
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    PresumingEd wrote:
    Intent most definitely does count: it is not murder if there is no "mens rea" (i.e. intent to kill to cause grevious bodily harm)

    Your opinion dude, not mine......
  • Heckler1974
    Heckler1974 Posts: 479
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    Your opinion dude, not mine......

    Strictly sepaking it's the root of all criminal law rather than one fella's opinion. Has to be an intent to commit the crime as well as the actual crime itself.

    Of course no need to allow facts to get in the way of a lynch mob, just ask the British press......
  • Nuggs
    Nuggs Posts: 1,804
    blackpanther wrote:
    Nuggs wrote:
    What those boys did was appalling and it's right that they should have been punished. I disagree with the assertions that they were too young to understand. Other kids don't do this type of thing; they have an understanding of right and wrong.

    However, justice should only be administered through the proper channels.

    I agree with the protection of Venable's identity; we should not leave punishment as a matter for members of the public to take into their own hands.

    Without new identification, Venables' life will be at risk. We may agree that he deserves whatever he gets, but punishment outside the law is not right in a civilised society.


    but hes put hiumself ouside of the law hasnt he?
    The law is there to set acceptable boundaries and punish those who go beyond them.

    The central administration of justice is a key tenet of any civilised society. If anyone who acts unlawfully loses their rights under the law, then the concept of law fails.

    If a motorist is caught speeding, should we throw them to the baying mob?
  • Nuggs
    Nuggs Posts: 1,804
    Nuggs wrote:
    blackpanther wrote:
    Nuggs wrote:
    What those boys did was appalling and it's right that they should have been punished. I disagree with the assertions that they were too young to understand. Other kids don't do this type of thing; they have an understanding of right and wrong.

    However, justice should only be administered through the proper channels.

    I agree with the protection of Venable's identity; we should not leave punishment as a matter for members of the public to take into their own hands.

    Without new identification, Venables' life will be at risk. We may agree that he deserves whatever he gets, but punishment outside the law is not right in a civilised society.


    but hes put hiumself ouside of the law hasnt he?
    The law is there to set acceptable boundaries and punish those who go beyond them.

    The central administration of justice is a key tenet of any civilised society. If anyone who acts unlawfully loses their rights under the law, then the concept of law fails.

    If a motorist is caught speeding, should we throw them to the baying mob as they have 'acted outside the law'?
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    spen666 wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    fast as fupp wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    simonaspinall wrote:
    But you have to have criminal intent to commit the crime....

    In a word, cobblers.

    Without getting dragged into this debate, in any circumstance (as far as I am cojncerned) lack of intent is no excuse.


    so you admit you dont understand criminal law?

    Yes I admit it.

    I was giving an opinion - that's OK with you, right? :D


    Expressing an opinion on something you admit to knowing nothing about seems to me to be the actions of a rather foolish person

    I wasn't expressing an opinion on Law, I was expressing my opion on intent.

    I don't have to know the law to state that IN MY OPINION, intent doesn't count. Murder is murder.

    Erm except that intent is part of the law.

    You are expressing an opinion on a criminal offence and what forms part of that offence
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    PresumingEd wrote:
    ...

    .... I also agreed with the Children's Commissioner when she stated that Venables and Thompson should not have been tried as adults; that was a political decision swayed by tabloid outrage and should not have been permitted in a supposedly civilised country

    They were not tried as adults.


    They were tried in the Crown Court rather than a youth court because ironically the Crown Court could offer more protection to the 2 defendants than a youth court could.

    This is due to the technical rules governing the courts at that time - many of which have since been changed
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • spen666
    spen666 Posts: 17,709
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    PresumingEd wrote:
    Intent most definitely does count: it is not murder if there is no "mens rea" (i.e. intent to kill to cause grevious bodily harm)

    Your opinion dude, not mine......

    Not opinion, but a matter of legal fact.

    ....
    Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
    Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

    Twittering @spen_666
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    spen666 wrote:
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    PresumingEd wrote:
    Intent most definitely does count: it is not murder if there is no "mens rea" (i.e. intent to kill to cause grevious bodily harm)

    Your opinion dude, not mine......

    Not opinion, but a matter of legal fact.

    ....

    Yes, sorry, apols.

    Still don't agree with it tho...
  • blackpanther
    blackpanther Posts: 221
    look the truth is irrespective of how they became evil child murdering little bas tards, they are still evil child murdering little bas tards.

    So evil in fact they should be hung from by the neck from the statue with the scales of justice.

    Id happily make and fit the noose to them and do the job without remorse or compassion, i really dont see what the problem is with some of you. trying to see the bigger picture is fine but dont forget the facts.
  • Heckler1974
    Heckler1974 Posts: 479
    BigJimmyB wrote:
    Yes, sorry, apols.

    Still don't agree with it tho...

    You don't agree that we should take intent into account when deciding what crime has been commited? :?

    Body laying on the ground, person standing over it:

    Until you decide whether the person intended to kill (or death occured as a result of grevious bodily harm inflicted) or whether the death occured unintentionally but during an illegal act you can't decide if the person committed murder or manslaughter, that's the basis of the legal system, two elements, the act itself and the intent.

    I ride a bike out of bike shop that I haven't paid for, it's only theft if it can be reasonably proven that my mental intention was to permanently deprive the bike shop of the bike.
  • Heckler1974
    Heckler1974 Posts: 479
    blackpanther wrote:
    Id happily make and fit the noose to them and do the job without remorse or compassion, i really dont see what the problem is with some of you.

    Morality, conscience and humanity by the looks of it..... :wink:

Categories