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.
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.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
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.
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.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
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.
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.
The punishement should fit the crime, the Law should be just. Two reasons why you should 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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
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....
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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?
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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.
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 don't want me, I want you! Alexandru Lapusneanul"
"They are a stupid mob, but neverless they are a mob! Alexandru Lapusneanul"
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
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.
- Four Horsemen of the Presence
I'm Norwegian remember, that means I'm a social-democrat
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?
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
You have a point, but that can only be take so far. Remember, the kid couldn't even SPEAK.
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.![]()
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
You Norwegians have a thing about religion, the reaction can be quite violent, is there a reason for that? Something historical?
Both excellent questions. The point is this, gaol should only be a punishment when the convicted is both a danger to society and unrepentant.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?
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Bookmarks