In a society where its tit-for-tat, it not a question of handing myself in - I would be arrested instead.
You're missing the point - its about a life for a life whether you intended to take one or not.
age of criminal resposibility
- Thread starter custard
- Start date
Currently reading:
age of criminal resposibility
In a society where its tit-for-tat, it not a question of handing myself in - I would be arrested instead.
You're missing the point - its about a life for a life whether you intended to take one or not.
I think we understand the point. I understand the point but I don't believe it would be fair for that to happen.
People make mistakes, we are not perfect.
Some mistakes can be avoided so you may argue that some punishement should come from a mistake that could have been adverted.
Some mistakes cannot be avoided and are just unfortunate, unavoidable accidents plain and simple. I don't think anyone should be punished for something they had absolutely no control over.
izzy eckerslike
New member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 137
- Points
- 22
The actual definition of manslaughter is quite interesting:
- The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.
It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.
The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.
In cases of mutual combat, it is generally manslaughter only when one of the parties is killed. When death ensues from duelling the rule is different, and such killing is murder.
- The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.
It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.
The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.
In cases of mutual combat, it is generally manslaughter only when one of the parties is killed. When death ensues from duelling the rule is different, and such killing is murder.
i grew up in a soceity where you go to an adults' prison from age 11. you get same punishment regardless of age. its a good system, you learn about consequence early and dont have the opportunity to take advantage of a soft legal system. if you take it easy on kids the way we do in the uk then they quickly learn that they can do what they want. consequence is a critical part of learning to act responsibly, its too late to do it at 16 or 18, you need to teach them from a young age. in the uk young offenders are let off lightly even if they are prosecuted, thats backward, age should not matter, the consequence should be related to the crime, not the criminal.
I think ten is fine. At ten I knew the difference between right and wrong, even if I didn't always think through the consequences of my actions. I think this is where some other countries get the older age of responsibility from - where children can think through to the consequences of doing something wrong as opposed to knowing it's wrong. I do think in cases of children aged 10-16 the parents should also be held partially responsible and parenting classes, community service etc should come into play to help the parents (asopposed to punishment). After all, in this case, the children will be back out in a year and the parents still won't be able to deal with them - it will be a downward spiral 
And for children younger than ten, the parents should be 100% responsbile and be treated as if they had committed the crime - because for a child that young, there's no excuse for the parent not knowing what their child was doing and how they were behaving. I do agree there needs to be more for children to do - youth clubs and the like. And so many of these families don't do things as families - taking days out or even eating together or going for a walk to keep the children occupied and to keep them under the parents wing. There's so much wrong and I don't know how to put it right
And for children younger than ten, the parents should be 100% responsbile and be treated as if they had committed the crime - because for a child that young, there's no excuse for the parent not knowing what their child was doing and how they were behaving. I do agree there needs to be more for children to do - youth clubs and the like. And so many of these families don't do things as families - taking days out or even eating together or going for a walk to keep the children occupied and to keep them under the parents wing. There's so much wrong and I don't know how to put it right 
I 100% agree with you here Jug. Deterent is far better than a cure, but how can we deter our youngsters when they known they can literally get away with murder until they are 18? By which point the morals instilled into them are so loose they think they are untouchable.
It's the very pc and softly softly approach in this country that is bringing up kids with no sense of right or wrong. ASBO? Badge of honour amongst the Chavs. Persistent trouble makers? Can't do much because they're often below the age of legal responsibility. Perhaps as Jug says it's about time the punishment reflected the crime commited. Perhaps when some of these trouble makers are removed from society and severly punished, only then will the message get through to others not to try and follow suit.
I also strongly believe that the parents need to take more responsibility for their kids actions. They brought the little runts into the world, so it's their responsibility to bring them up and keep them in line. If they can't do that then they should either be prosecuted for their childrens crimes or be made to attend good parenting classes. As it stands though many parents let their kids run amok and leave it up to the social services to sort out the mess, which often they can't do much as their hands are tied with so much red tape.
lets imagine a stereotypical mother of the type of kids that wage war on our communities, she's 25, has 3 kids to 3 different men and none of the dad's are around, she didnt do anything as school other than smoking joints, she lives in a council house with no carpets and original 1960's wallpaper, her new boyfriend only comes round to shag her and steal some of her benefit money, she lets her kids roam the streets and couldnt give a toss where they are or what they are doing, she has no hope. her name is sharon eadsforth and she lives at... hang on i'm meant to be keeping this hypothetical.
how do you teach someone like that how to be a good parent? how do you make them want to be a good parent? how do you make her give a toss about anything at all?
stick her in jail and the kids go into care, after a few years of getting raped by pedo's they end up in council houses and life the same life. dont jail her and her kids still grow up to be the same anyway. take money off her and the kids go more hungry than usual. give her community service and she'll say she's too busy with her kids to do it and the court will say ok.
hitler style gas chambers are the only long term solution i can see, or punish the kids directly so they learn from the state rather than their disfunctional parents, but ultimately they're all doomed anyway so lets skip the crap and get the gas chambers out.
how do you teach someone like that how to be a good parent? how do you make them want to be a good parent? how do you make her give a toss about anything at all?
stick her in jail and the kids go into care, after a few years of getting raped by pedo's they end up in council houses and life the same life. dont jail her and her kids still grow up to be the same anyway. take money off her and the kids go more hungry than usual. give her community service and she'll say she's too busy with her kids to do it and the court will say ok.
hitler style gas chambers are the only long term solution i can see, or punish the kids directly so they learn from the state rather than their disfunctional parents, but ultimately they're all doomed anyway so lets skip the crap and get the gas chambers out.
Last edited:
There are some remote islands dotted around the British Isles that would be perfect for people like this Jug.
Give them the choice. They either act responsibly, look after their kids and can then live in a 'normal' society with other law abiding citizens. Or they can live in supervised isolation and be cut off from society until they learn to behave like normal civilised people.
Perhaps when they have to choose between these they might try and do something constructive with their lives.
Give them the choice. They either act responsibly, look after their kids and can then live in a 'normal' society with other law abiding citizens. Or they can live in supervised isolation and be cut off from society until they learn to behave like normal civilised people.
Perhaps when they have to choose between these they might try and do something constructive with their lives.
There are some remote islands dotted around the British Isles that would be perfect for people like this Jug.
Give them the choice. They either act responsibly, look after their kids and can then live in a 'normal' society with other law abiding citizens. Or they can live in supervised isolation and be cut off from society until they learn to behave like normal civilised people.
Perhaps when they have to choose between these they might try and do something constructive with their lives.
They tried that with Oz, problem is it worked quite well and now we all wish we lived there :bang:
@ Helz, thats so true!
There's so much wrong and I don't know how to put it right
:yeahthat:
I think firstly they should work harder on teenage pregnacy issues...young mums do not make the best ones...sorry if people dont agree with that, just what I see. The 16 year old mum might be great all the time the baby sits in a pram/car seat looking cute and yep, motherhood seems a doddle ... but 3 - 5 - 10 years down the track when baby is no more and he child becomes challenging, the relationship is over or dead between the parents and mum realises that in her mid 20's she has actually bored sh*tless and can't cope with the little devil... then the real problems begin.
As for the age..I'm really not sure if 10 is too young, I don't think so. My two are 7 & 10 and I know where they are at all times, so no issue for me. But when I was 10 I done some bloody stupid things, which a few of these could have turned out quite badly...'stupid game gone wrong' However none of which involved throwing stones at old men...Again..lack of respect for adults.
But as has already been mentioned in this thread... There is a huge lack of things for children to do.
When I was younger, we had a youth centre...this would hold the regular nights..roller disco's (lol
) and there was often something going on. Also for the older kids (boys were preferenced..grrr) there was a workshop out the back. The centre would be given a dead car, kids would fix it up and get it running again. Was a fantastic idea, the lads had fun, learnt at the same time, kept off the streets and away from other peoples cars. And would often end up with a profit. Win win situation
So in general, I think 10 needs to stay as it is. The kids already know they can get away with too much...If it goes up to 18, all hell with break loose...and the "Can't touch me" attitude will just get worse
i know of a similar scheme in hartlepool, but you are only allowed to go if you are a 'persistent youth offender'. i guess they cant justify the cost for good kids.The centre would be given a dead car, kids would fix it up and get it running again. Was a fantastic idea, the lads had fun, learnt at the same time, kept off the streets and away from other peoples cars. And would often end up with a profit. Win win situation
when I was at school my friends Dad ran a scheme like this. He was a mechanic and any old cars that had been traded in at his garage and were fit for scrap were taken to a bit of wasteland that he rented from the council and any local kids could go there on a Sat morning and thrash the cars about on a circuit he'd made.
Trouble was that the council insisted that he took young offenders and taught them to repair the cars and let them drive them, and of course they were all little b*stards and they would spoil the fun for the local kids, so he just shut it down in the end.
Trouble was that the council insisted that he took young offenders and taught them to repair the cars and let them drive them, and of course they were all little b*stards and they would spoil the fun for the local kids, so he just shut it down in the end.
