Lockerbie Bomber Released

[Captain Seafort]

Shooting Ted Bundy in the face isn't remotely the same thing as shooting a kid in the face.

On the contrary, the same crime should be treated the same way regardless of who the victim is, whether they deserved it or not. To do otherwise abrogates the vital principle of equality before the law.

[Tsukiyumi]

...the unlawful killing of another human with intent...

There's the key; I'd argue that Ted Bundy was a rabid animal. A kid is just... a kid.

On the contrary, the same crime should be treated the same way regardless of who the victim is, whether they deserved it or not. To do otherwise abrogates the vital principle of equality before the law.

Yes, "One size fits all", right?

I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

[Captain Seafort]

There's the key; I'd argue that Ted Bundy was a rabid animal. A kid is just... a kid.

Tough shit - a human's behaviour does not change their species, however much you might want it to.

I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

Indeed - it should fit the crime. The crime is not dependant on who the victim is.

[Tsukiyumi]

We should start charging admission for these discussions.

Tough s**t - a human's behaviour does not change their species, however much you might want it to.

I believe our behavior, our actions, are the defining characteristic of our humanity. Or lack of it.

Indeed - it should fit the crime. The crime is not dependant on who the victim is.

Over here, we have a number of degrees of "murder" or "manslaughter", which vary depending who the victim is, and the circumstances of the crime.

A guy texting on his cellphone who runs into another guy crossing the street doesn't get the same charge as a person who rapes, mutilates and kills women. As it should be.

[Captain Seafort]

I believe our behavior, our actions, are the defining characteristic of our humanity. Or lack of it.

Basic biology disagrees with you.

A guy texting on his cellphone who runs into another guy crossing the street doesn't get the same charge as a person who rapes, mutilates and kills women. As it should be.

I agree. Causing death by dangerous driving is a less serious offence than premeditated torture, rape and murder. The identity of the victim remains irrelevant - it is the actions of the criminal that define his punishment.

[Tsukiyumi]

Basic biology disagrees with you.

Yes, basic biology says we're all just animals.

...The identity of the victim remains irrelevant - it is the actions of the criminal that define his punishment.

Not over here. Let me explain: if someone shot me to death, they might be charged with first degree murder. If that guy shot a cop, or a kid, he'd be charged with capital murder. The identity of the victim is entirely relevant, and is used (along with the nature of the crime) to determine the charge, and the possible punishments.

[IanKennedy]

Basic biology disagrees with you.

Yes, basic biology says we're all just animals.

Yes, but of different species.

...The identity of the victim remains irrelevant - it is the actions of the criminal that define his punishment.

Not over here. Let me explain: if someone shot me to death, they might be charged with first degree murder. If that guy shot a cop, or a kid, he'd be charged with capital murder. The identity of the victim is entirely relevant, and is used (along with the nature of the crime) to determine the charge, and the possible punishments.

So you are saying that a cops life is more important than yours, and you seem to be happy with that. Ones job, or lack there of, should not define your worth as a human being. The crime of deliberately killing you should be just the same as killing a cop. You are no less of a human being.

[Captain Seafort]

Not over here. Let me explain: if someone shot me to death, they might be charged with first degree murder. If that guy shot a cop, or a kid, he'd be charged with capital murder.

And what exactly would make your murder a less serious offence than that of a policeman or child?

[Tsukiyumi]

So you are saying that a cops life is more important than yours, and you seem to be happy with that. Ones job, or lack there of, should not define your worth as a human being. The crime of deliberately killing you should be just the same as killing a cop. You are no less of a human being.

I disagree with that particular part; I do, however, believe that killing a child would be a more grievous offense, and deserves a harsher punishment.

And what exactly would make your murder a less serious offence than that of a policeman or child?

Like I said, I don't agree about the police; the child is different. I can potentially defend myself - the child can't.

As an example, if someone shot the Queen, or Prince William, would they be treated the same, and charged with the same thing as someone who shot "Random schmoe A"? I know over here, shooting the President would be considered a capital offense.

[Captain Seafort]

Like I said, I don't agree about the police; the child is different. I can potentially defend myself - the child can't.

In your case the child could leg it - you can't. But, nonetheless, why should a person's ability to defend themselves have any bearing on the severity of the crime of murdering them? Would the child be more dead than an adult?

As an example, if someone shot the Queen, or Prince William, would they be treated the same, and charged with the same thing as someone who shot "Random schmoe A"? I know over here, shooting the President would be considered a capital offense.

With regards to murdering Prince William, the culprit would only be guilty of murder. Treason is reserved for offences that would disrupt the operation of government, and is far wider-ranging than conspiracy to murder the Sovereign:

• Death of the King, Queen, or their eldest Son
  Violating the Queen, or the King's eldest Daughter unmarried, or his eldest Son's Wife
  Levying War against the King is his realm
  Adhering to the King's Enemies in his realm
  Killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, or Judges in Execution of their Duty
  Forging the Great Seal of Scotland (Scotland only)

The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, since 1998

[Tsukiyumi]

In your case the child could leg it - you can't.

Good point. I think an attack on a disabled person is also considered a more serious offense, but I'm not sure.

But, nonetheless, why should a person's ability to defend themselves have any bearing on the severity of the crime of murdering them?

Same as firing on a hospital ship; it's just plain unethical.

As an example, if someone shot the Queen, or Prince William, would they be treated the same, and charged with the same thing as someone who shot "Random schmoe A"? I know over here, shooting the President would be considered a capital offense.

Treason is reserved for offences that would disrupt the operation of government, and is far wider-ranging than conspiracy to murder the Sovereign:

• Death of the King, Queen, or their eldest Son
  Violating the Queen, or the King's eldest Daughter unmarried, or his eldest Son's Wife
  Levying War against the King is his realm
  Adhering to the King's Enemies in his realm
  Killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, or Judges in Execution of their Duty
  Forging the Great Seal of Scotland (Scotland only)

The maximum penalty is life imprisonment, since 1998

I keep forgetting that you guys don't even have the death penalty over there.

Still, killing the Queen would be a greater offense than killing a random schmoe, yes?

In any case, I just believe that in certain cases, killing is justified, and in others, it's a disgusting offense that merits death. To me, the nature of the victim and the severity of the murder are things to be considered.

Yes, dead is dead, but hours or days of torture before a painful and gruesome death is more offensive to me than say, filling someone's house with carbon monoxide while they sleep. Also, (to me) killing hundreds or thousands of people is more offensive than killing one person.

I guess it's just a matter of our different sensibilities.

[Mikey]

Hate to go back a couple of pages, but how exactly would reversing Scotland's decision change the circumstances of the victims' survivors?

Like I said, Scotland's decision is independent of the convict. If they kept him in prison, the victims would be just as dead. Scotland's decision is indicative ONLY of Scotland, not of the recipient of that decision.

[Captain Seafort]

Good point. I think an attack on a disabled person is also considered a more serious offense, but I'm not sure.

Again, why? Were you murdered, would you be more dead than someone who isn't disabled?

Same as firing on a hospital ship; it's just plain unethical.

Huge difference. A more accurate comparison would be between torpedoing a tramp steamer going in a straight line, and torpedoing a zigzagging liner - the former is a much easier target, but the legality and morality of doing either is exactly the same, assuming neither is carrying munitions.

I keep forgetting that you guys don't even have the death penalty over there.

Correct. We're a civilised country.

Still, killing the Queen would be a greater offense than killing a random schmoe, yes?

Correct - because it's a crime that would disrupt the running of government.

To me, the nature of the victim and the severity of the murder are things to be considered.

The second part of that I can agree with, albeit in terms of additional offences being piled on top of that of murder, rather than different incidences of the same crime being considered differently.

Yes, dead is dead, but hours or days of torture before a painful and gruesome death is more offensive to me than say, filling someone's house with carbon monoxide while they sleep.

I agree, but the offence of murder is exactly the same in both cases - the torture is a completely separate charge.

Also, (to me) killing hundreds or thousands of people is more offensive than killing one person.

Indeed - but the individual offences remain the same. There are simply a lot of them, and this has no effect whatsoever on the compassionate release of the criminal, which is authorised on the grounds of how long the criminal has left to live, and not affected by the duration of of his original sentence.

[Nickswitz]

I don't know if this had been said before or not, but he adamantly claimed he was innocent, he even refused to take a deal because he claimed it would show everyone he was guilty. Also, there was no proof that he did it, only circumstantial evidence, which last time I checked, in the US can't even get the person into court, so he was tried and convicted on something that in the US would never have made it past a warrent.

All this is from articles from long ago and from my dad, so, if I'm wrong, just show me and I'll concede all points.

[Sionnach Glic]

Wow, this thread just exploded. Going back a bit.

Well, that's pretty damn distasteful. And, that's crossing the line into terrorism.

It was terrorism. It's just that now the history books on both sides have been white-washed so that the original IRA were freedom-fighters, while the current IRA are terrorists. It's all politics.

S'ok though: he was gunned down in an ambush.

Aye, on the orders of someone who was probably worse. At least Collins didn't start a civil war because he lost an election. And at least he admitted that they weren't involved in some glorious or honourable struggle.

I'm still awaiting the US government rounding up the bastards from America who funded the IRA, after all under the patriot act they are terrorists. As for the bollocks about the IRA being some sort of happy bunch of freedom fighters, I don't know what planet you live on. The standard IRA tactic was to plant bombs in public places, for example the Arndale Centre in Manchester. In my mind they're just as bad as the people who flew plains into the world trade center.

Damn right. They're terrorists, plain and simple. Lock them up, along with the fuckers who were funding them from abroad.

Didn't the IRA also used to mortar public places out of vans?

Yep. And they ended up getting pretty good at it.

I didn't know any Americans collaborated; I guess that's the sort of thing the government doesn't like to disseminate.

Plenty of Americans gave funding to them. Back in the early twenties, Eammon DeValera went to the US to collect funds to support the IRA in the war against Britain and to try and get the US to officialy recognise Ireland as a sovereign country. It was while he was in the US that Collins pretty much took over and started winning the war. Then DeValera came back, got pissed that Collins was more popular than him and threw away all the progress that had been made during the war. Then he started a civil war when he didn't get everything he wanted.

Sounds exactly like Iraq, at least according to my buddy who served over there.

It pretty much was Iraq. The British deployed a lot of troops that had served in the North to the Middle East once the insurgencies started cropping up for exactly that reason. They already had experience in dealing with that type of shit.

People from the UK generally think of the Irish people separately from the IRA. It's stupid to discriminate against an entire nation for the actions of a few bastards.

Yeah, thanks for that.
We tend to try and distance ourselves from them as well.

Well, everyone but Sinn Fein and its supporters, that is.