Org Mobile Site
Pretty much what Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla says. It is manslaughter, not murder, as there is no intent to kill. They can however, have very similar punishments. Depending on circumstances.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
That's not the point, the point is intent.
Voluntary manslaughter at best, not murder. Murder requires the intent to kill. In English Law Lit., "the killing of another with malice of forethought".
Here there was no intent to kill, ergo no "murder". That doesn't mean there was no homicide.
Who cares?That's not the point, the point is intent.
Voluntary manslaughter at best, not murder. Murder requires the intent to kill. In English Law Lit., "the killing of another with malice of forethought".
Here there was no intent to kill, ergo no "murder". That doesn't mean there was no homicide.
My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.
Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Who cares?
My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.
The sentencing options are different depending on the law paragraph, and it is necessary to use the proper section of the law to convict them. If you aren't proper in your application of the law it loses all respect in the eyes of the educated citizenry.Who cares?
My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.
Originally Posted by :
Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.
A punch going wrong and resulting in death could be considered second degree murder, depending on the specifics of the case.Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Who cares?
My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.
The punishement should fit the crime, the Law should be just. Two reasons why you should care.Who cares?
My point is jail time for the both of them, why on earth you think I care in the slightest about which law paragraph is used to convict them is quite frankly beyond my imagination.
Originally Posted by :
Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.
Ironic, given that our Law draws heavily on Danish and Norwegian concepts.Anyway, we Norwegians thankfully drew our bureaucratic ideals from the french, we have none of these silly english concepts, and here they would stand trial for murder, as explained earlier. Manslaughter is what we call it when someone is run over by a car, we call it murder when a punch goes wrong and results in death, a baby is shaken to death or when someone denies their child medical care.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
The punishement should fit the crime, the Law should be just. Two reasons why you should care.
......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.The punishement should fit the crime, the Law should be just. Two reasons why you should care.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.
Since you believe doing time is all about rehabilitation, what do you propose for these parents that would actually make them healthy members of society?......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
Since you believe doing time is all about rehabilitation, what do you propose for these parents that would actually make them healthy members of society?
I'm all about rehabilitation, and I also have a deep hatred of locking people away.Since you believe doing time is all about rehabilitation, what do you propose for these parents that would actually make them healthy members of society?
Unfortunately, I'm also a big fan of "everyone being equal before the law". This case will be an exception, good for them, but bad for the rest of us. They should, of course, get the same punishment any other person gets for killing another human being in their state.
How high I want the sentence to be is really beyond the question.
Here is another example of child neglect, like that in this case. 15 years in prison, and they didn't even kill their child. Their fault was to get high on pills, not Jesus, as that gets you a free pass to whack your kids. Somebody should've told 'em....
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I'm all about rehabilitation, and I also have a deep hatred of locking people away.
Unfortunately, I'm also a big fan of "everyone being equal before the law". This case will be an exception, good for them, but bad for the rest of us. They should, of course, get the same punishment any other person gets for killing another human being in their state.
How high I want the sentence to be is really beyond the question.
Here is another example of child neglect, like that in this case. 15 years in prison, and they didn't even kill their child. Their fault was to get high on pills, not Jesus, as that gets you a free pass to whack your kids. Somebody should've told 'em....
There is a very different intent there, these parents were not "neglectful" in the same since. They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing. Intent must be taken into account.I'm all about rehabilitation, and I also have a deep hatred of locking people away.
Unfortunately, I'm also a big fan of "everyone being equal before the law". This case will be an exception, good for them, but bad for the rest of us. They should, of course, get the same punishment any other person gets for killing another human being in their state.
How high I want the sentence to be is really beyond the question.
Here is another example of child neglect, like that in this case. 15 years in prison, and they didn't even kill their child. Their fault was to get high on pills, not Jesus, as that gets you a free pass to whack your kids. Somebody should've told 'em....
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.
No, because intent is important, hence the importance of the mens rea.......And that's exactly why I object to 6 months of "jail" for killing your own daughter.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
There is a very different intent there, these parents were not "neglectful" in the same since. They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing. Intent must be taken into account.
There is a very different intent there, these parents were not "neglectful" in the same since. They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing. Intent must be taken into account.
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars:
No, because intent is important, hence the importance of the mens rea.
Intent would've made it worse, but this is still bad enough.No, because intent is important, hence the importance of the mens rea.
And yes they were neglectful in the same way. What the difference between food and medicine? What's the difference between being high on drugs and jesus?
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Intent would've made it worse, but this is still bad enough.
And yes they were neglectful in the same way. What the difference between food and medicine? What's the difference between being high on drugs and jesus?
I dunno, what's the difference between being high on Jesus and being high on Socialism?Intent would've made it worse, but this is still bad enough.
And yes they were neglectful in the same way. What the difference between food and medicine? What's the difference between being high on drugs and jesus?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing.
How can you possibly substantiate that?They believed they were doing the right thing, the best thing.
Originally Posted by jabarto:
How can you possibly substantiate that?
They believed God heals people, not medicine, so they prayed instead of going to a doctor.How can you possibly substantiate that?
Ergo, they tried to do the best thing. Prove otherwise, criminal cases presume innocence.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
They believed God heals people, not medicine, so they prayed instead of going to a doctor.
Ergo, they tried to do the best thing. Prove otherwise, criminal cases presume innocence.
Are you seriously arguing that these people were so isolated for their entire middle-aged lives that they couldn't have learned that even the most die-hard of fundmaentalists take their kids to the doctors?They believed God heals people, not medicine, so they prayed instead of going to a doctor.
Ergo, they tried to do the best thing. Prove otherwise, criminal cases presume innocence.
I'm not saying intent doesn't matter. I'm saying that every life form, no matter how primitive, has an instinctual urge to ensure that its offspring don't die. These people ignored that and thus have no excuse.
If they ware underprivilaged because of theri revenue then I truely understand the parents (in a way). In Romania we too have an excellent medical system.
If you have to pay to heal your child most parents chose "alternatives" even if sometimes those alternatives are wrong.
Their loss is more painfull than any sentance.
If you have to pay to heal your child most parents chose "alternatives" even if sometimes those alternatives are wrong.
Their loss is more painfull than any sentance.
Originally Posted by jabarto:
Are you seriously arguing that these people were so isolated for their entire middle-aged lives that they couldn't have learned that even the most die-hard of fundmaentalists take their kids to the doctors?
I'm not saying intent doesn't matter. I'm saying that every life form, no matter how primitive, has an instinctual urge to ensure that its offspring don't die. These people ignored that and thus have no excuse.
You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.Are you seriously arguing that these people were so isolated for their entire middle-aged lives that they couldn't have learned that even the most die-hard of fundmaentalists take their kids to the doctors?
I'm not saying intent doesn't matter. I'm saying that every life form, no matter how primitive, has an instinctual urge to ensure that its offspring don't die. These people ignored that and thus have no excuse.
The way I see it is that there are two possibilities:
1. They knew that modern medicine would probably heal their child but chose not to use it, in which case they are psychopaths and should be in gaol, or
2. They believed that prayer would treat their daughter's sickness better than modern medicine, in which case they are delusional and should be in a mental institution.
1. They knew that modern medicine would probably heal their child but chose not to use it, in which case they are psychopaths and should be in gaol, or
2. They believed that prayer would treat their daughter's sickness better than modern medicine, in which case they are delusional and should be in a mental institution.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
I dunno, what's the difference between being high on Jesus and being high on Socialism?
I'm Norwegian remember, that means I'm a social-democrat I dunno, what's the difference between being high on Jesus and being high on Socialism?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.
Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?
He still intended to break the law. These parents didn't.Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera:
If they ware underprivilaged because of theri revenue then I truely understand the parents (in a way). In Romania we too have an excellent medical system.
If you have to pay to heal your child most parents chose "alternatives" even if sometimes those alternatives are wrong.
Their loss is more painfull than any sentance.
You have a point, but that can only be take so far. Remember, the kid couldn't even SPEAK.If they ware underprivilaged because of theri revenue then I truely understand the parents (in a way). In Romania we too have an excellent medical system.
If you have to pay to heal your child most parents chose "alternatives" even if sometimes those alternatives are wrong.
Their loss is more painfull than any sentance.
Also, Philipvs, I might have given the wrong imporession in my responses to you. I think you're one of the most reasoanble and knowedgeable psoters here, and I don't want to come off as being pissed at you for defending these people. I'm more pissed at the blatant religous favoritism the judge is showing here; if these people were *anything* other than devout Christians, they would have had the book thrown at them. But they prayed first (to the right deity) so I guess that makes it all okay in the eyes of the law.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.
They could instead have been eager on proving themselves and their beliefs; despite being fully aware of the risk they were potentially taking.You are still assuming that the parents believed that modern medicine was better than prayer. It seems they actually believed that modern medicine evidences a lack of faith in God, which might therefore endanger their own, or their daughter's souls.
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr:
He still intended to break the law. These parents didn't.
Uhm, no? Because "denying a dying person medical care" sure sounds illegal to me....He still intended to break the law. These parents didn't.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I'm Norwegian remember, that means I'm a social-democrat
You Norwegians have a thing about religion, the reaction can be quite violent, is there a reason for that? Something historical?I'm Norwegian remember, that means I'm a social-democrat
Originally Posted by :
Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?
Irrelevant. Let's say you have a serial killer who believes that he's saving his victims from going to hell(I'm sure there's been at least one). Does he get a free pass to kill people?
Originally Posted by jabarto:
Also, Philipvs, I might have given the wrong imporession in my responses to you. I think you're one of the most reasoanble and knowedgeable psoters here, and I don't want to come off as being pissed at you for defending these people. I'm more pissed at the blatant religous favoritism the judge is showing here; if these people were *anything* other than devout Christians, they would have had the book thrown at them. But they prayed first (to the right deity) so I guess that makes it all okay in the eyes of the law.
Both excellent questions. The point is this, gaol should only be a punishment when the convicted is both a danger to society and unrepentant.Also, Philipvs, I might have given the wrong imporession in my responses to you. I think you're one of the most reasoanble and knowedgeable psoters here, and I don't want to come off as being pissed at you for defending these people. I'm more pissed at the blatant religous favoritism the judge is showing here; if these people were *anything* other than devout Christians, they would have had the book thrown at them. But they prayed first (to the right deity) so I guess that makes it all okay in the eyes of the law.
So, both these parents and a Jihadist militant should remain in gaol only so long as it takes to convince them their beliefs were mistaken.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Uhm, no? Because "denying a dying person medical care" sure sounds illegal to me....
How does that prove they intended to kill their daughter?Uhm, no? Because "denying a dying person medical care" sure sounds illegal to me....
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO