[reddwarf]

So drink drivers who do not kill people should be charged with attempted murder?

[red lady]

Originally Posted by reddwarf

So drink drivers who do not kill people should be charged with attempted murder?

dwarfy....i'm not saying that.but surely you can see what i'm saying.he knew he had been drinking.so he was a disaster ready to happen.

[haggler]

ive got in my car before not sure if still over the limit or not after a heavy night as i am sure most have if they are being honest . he was hammered and hadnt slept for ages and fell asleep at the wheel . far too many excuses are made when a life is taken . drink drugs tiredness etc etc etc . for me if you take a life you should serve the full 15 year term ---- time should be added for misbehaviour not taken off for behaving . this should apply for each life taken so in this case 30 years . then say 7 years for the guy he put in a wheelchair .

As in all things its open to interpretation --- if you are the victim though nothing other than a whole life term would do

[reddwarf]

Originally Posted by red lady

dwarfy....i'm not saying that.but surely you can see what i'm saying.he knew he had been drinking.so he was a disaster ready to happen.

I was speaking to my mum about it and she agrees with you and Blade so I was just curious about how people seperate, or in this case do not seperate, reckless and irresponsible behaviour from malicious behaviour.

It seems that the result of their actions is more important than the actions themselves...or as an Aussie comedian I was watching on Paramount the other night put it: "Drink and drive and you're a bloody idiot, but make it home and you're a hero!"

Although, I have to wonder whether we'd be having this debate if he'd killed Gary Glitter, or someone equally abhorrent, rather than 2 young boys with their whole lives in front of them.

[red lady]

Originally Posted by reddwarf

I was speaking to my mum about it and she agrees with you and Blade so I was just curious about how people seperate, or in this case do not seperate, reckless and irresponsible behaviour from malicious behaviour.

It seems that the result of their actions is more important than the actions themselves...or as an Aussie comedian I was watching on Paramount the other night put it: "Drink and drive and you're a bloody idiot, but make it home and you're a hero!"

Although, I have to wonder whether we'd be having this debate if he'd killed Gary Glitter, or someone equally abhorrent, rather than 2 young boys with their whole lives in front of them.

i'm going to be even more naughty now dwarfy..Gary Glitter paedophile...don't think he deserves to die,but if a drunken driver runs him down and kills him,then oh well. i 'm sorry but i can't even think bad thoughts.but thats the point your trying to make isn't it?.selective choice..and i agree with you too.but i still think my original thoughts.he should have got life those little ones haven't got a life.an eye for an eye..

[reddwarf]

Originally Posted by red lady

but thats the point your trying to make isn't it? selective choice

Yes, that's right. The ability to choose is what seperates man from monkey after all.

It's interesting that law can define something, such as murder, as one thing but a persons morality can define it as something else. Emotions get involved, and nothing invokes emotion more than loss of life, especially of children.

I think I understand where you're coming from. The example that comes to mind is someone stealing a loaf of bread. It's against the law and it's wrong and most people will agree with that. However, if you then learn that they stole the loaf to feed their starving children...the perception of the crime changes.

I appreciate your input on this. Thanks for the discussion.

[red lady]

Originally Posted by reddwarf

Yes, that's right. The ability to choose is what seperates man from monkey after all.

It's interesting that law can define something, such as murder, as one thing but a persons morality can define it as something else. Emotions get involved, and nothing invokes emotion more than loss of life, especially of children.

I think I understand where you're coming from. The example that comes to mind is someone stealing a loaf of bread. It's against the law and it's wrong and most people will agree with that. However, if you then learn that they stole the loaf to feed their starving children...the perception of the crime changes.

I appreciate your input on this. Thanks for the discussion.