Beakerzoid Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Clearly it wouldn't be criminal behavior if the law was changed, so your point is moot. Best comment on this thread so far! Had me in stitches. You could say the same about anything - so, having sexual relations with animals wouldn't be criminal behavior if the law was changed, nor would driving whilst under the influence of intoxicating substances, nor theft, nor.... you get the point. The fact is it IS illegal, and thus the point is far from moot. An argument that something is acceptable "If they change the law" is utterly ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Best comment on this thread so far! Had me in stitches. You could say the same about anything - so, having sexual relations with animals wouldn't be criminal behavior if the law was changed, nor would driving whilst under the influence of intoxicating substances, nor theft, nor.... you get the point. The fact is it IS illegal, and thus the point is far from moot. An argument that something is acceptable "If they change the law" is utterly ridiculous. If I say that the law in wrong in my opinion, so should be changed, there is little point in someone telling me that its against the law, because I clearly already know that its against the law, I am arguing that the law is wrong and should be changed. Is that easier for you to understand or do you still think people shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion that they think the law is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the dog broke into my house, then why not? .......wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenoside123 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So what's the difference between the topic of discussion and this case: http://m.thestar.co.uk/news/local/thief-to-get-life-for-murder-1-6465133 The latter is obviously a far more fitting punishment for taking away someone's life but why does the punching thug get let off so lightly in comparison to the pushing thug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 So what's the difference between the topic of discussion and this case: http://m.thestar.co.uk/news/local/thief-to-get-life-for-murder-1-6465133 The latter is obviously a far more fitting punishment for taking away someone's life but why does the punching thug get let off so lightly in comparison to the pushing thug? That incident was aggravated by Sindall breaking into the victim's home and trying to steal his car, lying about the degree of his involvement, pleading not guilty and inflicting far more than a push on his prone victim "Sindall, who had already used a torch to smack the 49-year-old married father of two daughters and a son, delivered further blows as Dean lay unconscious." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkaway Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the dog broke into my house, then why not? Sorry to interrupt your dream, but you cannot punish an animal for the crime that he does not understand. It is not as if a dog is willingly stealing from you. The only thing he sees is food. They are driven by instinct. It would be better to ask for compensation from the owner instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 If the dog broke into my house, then why not? Because it's disproportionate. And if you were applying it to a person and not an animal it would be extra judicial and incompatible with the right to a trial of your peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanava Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Sorry to interrupt your dream, but you cannot punish an animal for the crime that he does not understand. It is not as if a dog is willingly stealing from you. The only thing he sees is food. They are driven by instinct. It would be better to ask for compensation from the owner instead. I'm sure we just did when we killed the Dog for committing the crime of killing a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 That's not a punishment, strictly speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Premeditation means that a course of action is considered before the guilty act in such a way as to likley increase the success of the action, or to evade escape. Deciding on the spur of the moment to slug someone isn't premeditiation There are two types of GBH, section 18 and section 20 offences. s18 requires intent to do so, s20 doesn not. Neither of them as a component of the offence require premeditation to the act. . If your definition is correct, I concede that it was not pre-meditated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.