Gaz Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Yes it has been mentioned it's the law.....doesn't mean the law shouldn't have a degree of compassion. In my opinion.... You can't simply take the law away because a person feels guilt or remorse for what they've done. If you do, what's the boundaries, where does it start and end? Edited May 9, 2007 by Gaz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I'm no legal expert either, but negligence always seemed more common sense than legalistic to me. It's nearly impossible to define in statute.Would a "reasonable" parent in this situation have acted as they did, or not? Not being a parent, I wouldn't like to make a call on that. I do remember looking after a 5 year old niece in a restaurant once, who when I turned my back for a second to see to my nephew who was crying she somehow ended up at the top of a long flight of marble stairs about to take a header down them. I (just) caught her in time, but had she fallen would I have been responsible or negligent? I think many 'reasonable' parents on this thread have said they would. I also said I wouldn't personally leave kids of my own at that age. You can't simply take the law away because a person feels guilt or remorse for what they've done. If you do, what's the boundaries, where does it start and end? It's nothing to do with feeling guilt or remorse. You judge a case on it's merits. the consequences of this, in my opinion, are punishment enough. Where is the value in prosecuting these parents and the 2 other kids suffer as a result? What are you trying to achieve? That they won't do it again? I think that's fairly certain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 It's nothing to do with feeling guilt or remorse. You judge a case on it's merits. the consequences of this, in my opinion, are punishment enough. Where is the value in prosecuting these parents and the 2 other kids suffer as a result? What are you trying to achieve? That they won't do it again? I think that's fairly certain. To be fair, my responses began with Monkey's original comment, reasoning that the parents shouldn't be punished as "They made a mistake which they'll live with for the rest of their lives you clown", which sounds like it's an awful lot to do with guilt and remorse to me. I understand that the law should have a degree of compassion, but you run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent. What about my analogy above with the negligent nursery assistant or babysitter, do you refrain from punishing her simply because she'll also live with that the rest of their lives? What about the person who makes the mistake of driving when very tired, nods off and causes an accident, do they go unpunished? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I understand that the law should have a degree of compassion, The law itself should certainly not have any element of compassion in it. Sentencing however should, and does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 The law itself should certainly not have any element of compassion in it.Sentencing however should, and does. That's what I meant to say, that's a far better way of putting it. Cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 It's a strange thread this , and one which has made me shake my head more and more , I don't know if it's an age thing , a gender thing or perhaps just a parental thing but some folk just can't seem to be able to let go of the fact that these parents f'cked up . It reminds me a little , and hell I know it's not a comparable tale before I get it rammed down my throat , but - there's a test on moral development that kids answer differently depending in their powers of reasoning about a fella who steals expensive drugs to save his dying wife - many kids just simply cannot see past the point that stealing is bad ! not the same but making me think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 To be fair, my responses began with Monkey's original comment, reasoning that the parents shouldn't be punished as "They made a mistake which they'll live with for the rest of their lives you clown", which sounds like it's an awful lot to do with guilt and remorse to me.I understand that the law should have a degree of compassion, but you run the risk of setting a dangerous precedent. What about my analogy above with the negligent nursery assistant or babysitter, do you refrain from punishing her simply because she'll also live with that the rest of their lives? What about the person who makes the mistake of driving when very tired, nods off and causes an accident, do they go unpunished? The drivers actions directly caused an accident, so of course he should be punished. The Nursery Assistant's actions indirectly enabled someone to carry out a criminal act. Whether she should be prosecuted, I don't know. As a professional she should certainly face disciplinary charges. Do you think the parents should be charged with negligence and if so what do you think that would achieve? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 The law itself should certainly not have any element of compassion in it.Sentencing however should, and does. Yes, I think I am just shocked that people seem to want to punish these people further than they already have been. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 If the parents were to be charged with negligence, what next? Would kids not be allowed to play in the streets just in case there is a nutters on the prowl? How far could you take it? Unfuckingbelievable! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) The drivers actions directly caused an accident, so of course he should be punished. Correct. The Nursery Assistant's actions indirectly enabled someone to carry out a criminal act. Whether she should be prosecuted, I don't know. As a professional she should certainly face disciplinary charges. Of course she should be prosecuted, she has a duty of care to the children she's supposed to be looking after, and has ignored that, leading to the kidnapping. Put it this way, if the parents had put the child in the care of the hotel's creche and she had been kidnapped from there, do you think they would be sitting back saying that the staff had already suffered enough without taking it further? Do you think the parents should be charged with negligence and if so what do you think that would achieve? As it happens I don't, but these laws are in place for a reason, and not to charge them would set a dangerous precedent as I've said. Would that mean when a person commits an offence, all they have to say is that they'll have to live forever with the mistake they've made, and nothing more shall be done? Edited May 9, 2007 by Gaz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Yes, I think I am just shocked that people seem to want to punish these people further than they already have been. It's a difficult one though, and comes back to my original point on the thread. My one trip to do jury duty (which I wasn't picked for) saw a wee old lady that looked like your granny brought into court looking terrified and frail. Turned out she had killed a motorcyclist through dangerous driving. First thought - "she is in her 70s - probably isn't a fast driver and just made an error of judgement and will probably have been haunted by that day ever since what's the point in punishing her further" What if she had been a 21 year old skinhead ned chewing gum and walking in grinning, with his finger up though. First thought - "enjoy jail f'ker" Same crime - different reactions. No doubt different sentences too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Correct.As it happens I don't, but these laws are in place for a reason, and not to charge them would set a dangerous precedent as I've said. Would that mean when a person commits an offence, all they have to say is that they'll have to live forever with the mistake they've made, and nothing more shall be done? I'm so glad I got one right I don't think it would set a dangerous precedent so we shall agree to disagree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I don't think it would set a dangerous precedent so we shall agree to disagree. Fair enough 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 As it happens I don't, but these laws are in place for a reason, and not to charge them would set a dangerous precedent as I've said. Surely charging them would actually be a dangerous precedent? What message would that send out to other parents whose children get injured (or even worse) whilst out playing unsupervised? Would that be the parents fault? Would they be liable for neglicence then? Crazy talk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted May 9, 2007 Author Share Posted May 9, 2007 It's a difficult one though, and comes back to my original point on the thread. My one trip to do jury duty (which I wasn't picked for) saw a wee old lady that looked like your granny brought into court looking terrified and frail. Turned out she had killed a motorcyclist through dangerous driving. First thought - "she is in her 70s - probably isn't a fast driver and just made an error of judgement and will probably have been haunted by that day ever since what's the point in punishing her further" What if she had been a 21 year old skinhead ned chewing gum and walking in grinning, with his finger up though. First thought - "enjoy jail f'ker" Same crime - different reactions. No doubt different sentences too. Did the bitch go down? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Did the bitch go down? 'Course she did man, she lived her life by the book. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 It's a difficult one though, and comes back to my original point on the thread. My one trip to do jury duty (which I wasn't picked for) saw a wee old lady that looked like your granny brought into court looking terrified and frail. Turned out she had killed a motorcyclist through dangerous driving. First thought - "she is in her 70s - probably isn't a fast driver and just made an error of judgement and will probably have been haunted by that day ever since what's the point in punishing her further" What if she had been a 21 year old skinhead ned chewing gum and walking in grinning, with his finger up though. First thought - "enjoy jail f'ker" Same crime - different reactions. No doubt different sentences too. It's the old ones you need to watch I do agree it is a difficult one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradford-Rover Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 It's a difficult one though, and comes back to my original point on the thread. My one trip to do jury duty (which I wasn't picked for) saw a wee old lady that looked like your granny brought into court looking terrified and frail. Turned out she had killed a motorcyclist through dangerous driving. First thought - "she is in her 70s - probably isn't a fast driver and just made an error of judgement and will probably have been haunted by that day ever since what's the point in punishing her further" What if she had been a 21 year old skinhead ned chewing gum and walking in grinning, with his finger up though. First thought - "enjoy jail f'ker" Same crime - different reactions. No doubt different sentences too. Okay I agree but............... This gave me a moral dilemma as remember the guy who killed one of the young guys who broke into his house as the police werent doing anything about it? (His name escapes me just now) I agreed 100% that they got what they deserved as my opinion is if you put yourself into that situation you lose human rights and you take whatever happens to you. Criminals have too many rights today, they sue for any little reason as if they have been hard done by and usually get more compo than the actual victims, f**k em I say! I'm so glad I got one right I don't think it would set a dangerous precedent so we shall agree to disagree. I think it is, where do you draw the line? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Did the bitch go down? Dunno. I only stayed for the first couple of hours out of curiosity (and to avoid going back to work) to see whether the lawyers were any good (they weren't). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradford-Rover Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Guy was called Tony Martin http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jht.../20/nmar20.html Do you think it was right he was sent to jail? Edited May 9, 2007 by Steven 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.