View Single Post
Old 29-04-2008, 17:55   #69
Xaccers
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milling around Milton Keynes
Age: 48
Posts: 12,969
Xaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny stars
Xaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny stars
Re: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

Quote:
Originally Posted by trevortt View Post
But why not charge them on the fact that if they were not injuring the person(s) the death may not have happened?

Our crime rules are bezerk.
The point is "may"
If someone deliberately sets out to kill another person, such as kicking them to death, then they have committed murder.
If someone pushes another person into a pool of water after injuring them, it can be argued that they didn't intend to kill the person, only scare them or injure them further.

How's about this one.
You find out your wife is having an affair.
Insane with the situation, you get hold of a gun, and use it to force your neighbour to drive you to your wife and her lover.
You rush in and shoot both of them dead.
While you can claim diminished responsibility, your neighbour cannot, despite being held at gunpoint, and so can end up in court on charges of accessory to murder.
Barristers are currently arguing for changes to the murder laws so that this bizarre situation won't arise.
Xaccers is offline