Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
User avatar
By OCB
#1663582
lobstaboy wrote:
cockney steve wrote: If you are a Christian....!


I'm not.

Ah! LSD. Fond memories of my formative years. I particularly remember a night watching golden fishes jumping out of the sea ;)


What’s that Woodstock quote about, if you remember it - you weren’t there?

Psychopharmacology- I’ve known students to abuse before, during and especially after Finals. It’s one of those “self fulfilling prophecy” subjects, and I did it before the whole “smart drugs” thing kicked in...
User avatar
By Flyingfemme
#1663636
cockney steve wrote: Now, let' s look at the Rigby- killers' case. Maybe they were "out of their face"


Interesting........society used to take that view on drink driving but the general opinion has changed. Why the difference depending on the choice of drug?
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663638
The presumption that different cases need to attract a different sentence on account of the clarity of the evidence is just too simplistic.

Imagine the following Scenarios:

Victim + knife with blood from victim and fingerprints on the knife + video = in full view therefore the death penalty.

Victim + knife with blood from victim and fingerprints on the knife = not in full view therefore life imprisonment with a 15 year Minimum tariff.


:?:
User avatar
By skydriller
#1663640
I suspect that the second case may not even get a conviction without further evidence...
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663658
Flyingfemme wrote:
cockney steve wrote: Now, let' s look at the Rigby- killers' case. Maybe they were "out of their face"


Interesting........society used to take that view on drink driving but the general opinion has changed. Why the difference depending on the choice of drug?


Whilst I certainly would not condone drink driving, the fool that does this and causes a death, did not go out with the direct intention of murdering someone. The drink drivers intention would probably be to just get home and we just don't know how many succeed in this task. However, the one that fails would undoubtably demonstrate immediate remorse for their actions. To compare them with a pair of terrorists that set out with meat cleavers and headed to an army barracks with the intention of finding an off duty soldier, is a tad unfair.
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663666
Flyin'Dutch' wrote::roll: :roll:


:?:
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663668
Sooty25 wrote: :?:



FF suggested that in times gone by it was considered that being under the influence of alcohol a mitigating circumstance was when someone committed an offence, this she said is no longer the case.

Her question was whether it is a mitigating circumstance when the drug used is something different from alcohol.

She at no point, nor has anyone else, suggested that drink driving or any other offence is the same as a terrorist killing.
By cockney steve
#1663716
@Flyingfemme .....your selective editing missed the most pertinent part of my comment
Now, let' s look at the Rigby- killers' case. Maybe they were "out of their face" on drugs... no excuse.
bolding for emphasis and clarification.
I also commented "we are responsible for our own actions. There are "get-outs" such as "temporary insanity" and "crime of passion" and sure, I'm certain I'd soon learn to be really remorseful if i were "banged-up" for a crime and there was a possibility that such action might shorten my "visit."
I see no redemption for this evil, broken pair. I see no benefit in their incarceration, to them, or the public purse. They chose to live in a specific civilisation and society expects that they would accept that society's Mores, Morals and Ethics, -in short, that they'd be a citizen who was an asset to the community. Many fail to reach the highest ideals, but these subverted everything we stand for.
I am sure that Mr. Rigby's former colleagues could ,and would settle this swiftly and cheaply, given the opportunity.

As I said earlier, and @Flyin'Dutch' noted, with the "blooded knife" scenario Where there is true doubt, there should be leniency, which brings us back to the "let him have it" ambiguity in the purported Bentley trial evidence.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1663734
cockney steve wrote:As I said earlier, and @Flyin'Dutch' noted, with the "blooded knife" scenario Where there is true doubt, there should be leniency, which brings us back to the "let him have it" ambiguity in the purported Bentley trial evidence.


No @cockney steve ; where there is true doubt a verdict of 'not guilty' is appropriate.

Where there is evidence 'in full view' it will be easier for the jury to do their job, but where it is more difficult there should still be a trial and appropriate judgement.

And with that judgement a sentence as laid down in the law should be handed down.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8