[url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/Read all about it[/url, in particular this bit:

"Unlawful Act Manslaughter
This is where the killing is the result of:
[list
[*the defendant's unlawful act (not omission); [/*:m
[*where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm "[/*:m[/list:u

What would your criteria be in deciding who are the worst murderers who are also the most obviously guilty?

For example, would you treat Ian Huntley different to Myra Hindley? He was convicted by an 11-1 majority verdict. Would that spare him the noose?

old enough to remember it, but what that has to do with anything is anyone's guess.

All four were predetermined cold blooded murder i.e. they intended/planned to kill the victim. They were not under threat from the victims nor was it "self defence"

If you were a working (or not working in a lot of cases) adult with a young family and elderly relatives you would understand how some feel about the heartless bitch.

and? then hate her. but, and this is the thing, don't spout off about all the terrible, terrible things she and her party did while at the same time giving the ultimate backing for a party by voting for them when they did the same things. it makes you look a bit of a dick.

But there was still the [ipotential[/i for a miscarriage of justice in their cases. It's not too long ago that a woman was convicted of killing, both on separate occasions, her two children. That's the very definition of cold blooded - kills one child and feels so little remorse that she later kills another.

Anyway, it turns out she didn't kill either child and her conviction was overturned a few years later. What would have happened to her under your plans? Dug up and reanimated?

I didn't vote for Cameron

i'm sure you didn't. i mean people who bang on about the tories screwing the poor then vote labour after they abolished the 10p tax rate which screwed the poor. people like that are oafs.

Didn't labour bring it in in the first place and at the time the ordinary rate was 22p (reduced to 20p). I am sure that even after the 10p rate went, the overall tax paid was less than before. I am fortunate not to have to claim any tax credits or benefits, but have friends and relatives who have and they all say that life under Labour was better than before 1997 and certainly better than under Cameron, where low paid workers are taking a hammering.

As a 55 year old I remember my grandparents being hospitalised (and dying) during the 80's and to be honest the state of the hospitals was a bloody disgrace, with leaking buildings and poor heating due to lack of investment (similar to schools at the time), but whether you liked Labour under Blair or not, they did invest heavily in new schools and hospitals (a friend died from cancer a couple of years ago and he was treated in the new cancer wing at Castle Hill Hospital near Hull and it was like being in a private hospital) which has to be a good thing. I don't mind paying more tax to see better education and health services, I am not that desperate for a few more quid in my wages (unlike the multi millionaire mates of Cameron).

Labour did a lot wrong during their time in office, but the low paid, sick and elderly will be battered a lot more under Cameron than they would under any other colour of government.

As for voting, I rarely have anyone stand in my area that I am happy with, in fact you could stick a blue rosette on a corpse in this area and it would get voted in.

You've avoided the question, again.

Oh and FYI I haven't voted Labour in a long time, shame it doesn't fit in with your idiotic argument.

We have seen plenty of cases where people were convicted of appalling crimes – and then, many years later, it was proved that they were innocent. But originally, on their convictions, there were no doubts, were there?



Which does not address the point I made about the ethics.



I don't think it's okay to "murder innocent people in places like Afghanistan". Do you?

Do you also believe that two wrongs make a right?

my age is irrelevant. but like i said, old enough to remember it. or is there an optimum age when you can only have an opinion?

how is it idiotic? perhaps you can explain to me how whining like a stuck pig about the actions of 1 government while voting for another who not only did the same thing, but did it first, isn't the action of an idiot.

My grandparents died in the 70's and I wasn't all that impressed by the state of the hospitals at the time.

You cannot compare the two - there was no chance for a miscarriage in the cases I suggested, I am not sure your examples even count as murder - more likely manslaughter?

I fully understand the points you are making - execution should only be used where the crime is so hiddeous and the proof is certain - e.g Brady, Sutcliffe, West etc.

Personally I would re-introduce the death penalty because I think some crimes are so disgusting that they need treating with the ultimate sanction. On that we will obvious disagree.

As for war - there will always be - sadly - collateral damage, are you suggesting we should disband the armed forces? If not when do suggest state ordered killing - which is what war is - is OK

What part of 'every case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt' don't you understand? Every single murder trial in this country carries [uexactly the same[/u burden of proof. Anyone found guilty of murder has been shown in a court of law to be guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. And yet, sometimes we get it wrong.



Eh? Come again?

A mother kills her own child, then, on a separate occasion, she kills another of her children and you don't think that would count as murder? Exactly where is this 'real world' you inhabit?

Fair enough.

The only point I would make is that all murder is horrific (I use murder explicitly as different from manslaughter). To say that some murders are worse than others is ultimately always going to be subjective. And also creates a sort of class system of the value of life.

So, for instance, if someone believes that the murderers of children should be executed, then they're saying that a child's life is worth more than that of someone (presumably) who is murdered just an hour after whatever age the law decides they're an adult. The same sort of thing would apply if someone suggested that capital punishment should be used for killers of the elderly. At what age does a life become, in effect, more valuable?

Similarly, for those who claim that murderers of police officers should be executed: why is the life of a policeman or woman worth more than that of a non-policeman/woman? Would the same thing apply to civilian members of the police force – forensics officers, for instance?

It would always be subjective and illogical, and effectively ignores the generally horrific nature of murder.



I'd personally prefer to see the armed forces only used for defence.

The proof is 'certain' in every single murder case. Every one.

I wouldn't want Huntley to be killed, but you have to admit it would be a service to the gene pool to exterminate juror no. 12.

This is something that proponents of the death penalty are simply incapable of comprehending.

To what purpose, exactly?

Baffling, isn't it? Whatever your view on the ethics of the death penalty in principle, that fact that if it were to be reintroduced, it would only be a matter of time before an innocent person was put to death by the state should be enough to see that it is never brought back as a sentencing option.

OTOH Jane Nicklinson has been granted leave to continue her late husband’s challenge to the existing law on murder and assisted suicide.

The Court of Appeal has today ruled that she can continue to appeal, on the basis that current law was incompatible with his rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

If you are against the death penalty, are you for legalising assisted suicide? Is this a form of killing of a human that we should allow? If so, what's the difference? Would it set the precedent that yes, in at least one circumstance, it IS right to allow one human to kill another?

I agree re subjectivity - but our current sentencing in our judicial system is all based on the subjectivity of the judge.

With regards to children, they are largely defenceless and at the mercy of an adult - and as such the punishment should in some way reflect this.

On the police they are charged by us as citizens to protect us and as such they are exposed to situations that put themselves in danger that we as non police would have a choice as to our involvement. As such the punishment should once again reflect that.

On the armed forces do you think they should only deployed when someone invades?