Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back to the topic..

So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, you think they should be given the death penalty?!

Even i think thats a tad harsh!

As i said, 6-8 years would seem about right to me, i do not agree with the DP if they did it by accident, but fleeing the scene definately warrants at least 6-10 or something.

Unless you take DP to mean Double penetration, and not Death Penalty, because then i think that should be given to every petty criminal upwards from shop lifting.

dogma wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
That is complete BS, because someone loves their daughter more than life they instantly are pacifistic?

That's not what I said.

I said that if one centers their life on their daughter, then risking one's ability to care for said daughter is reckless..

passion rarely takes logic into account.

corpsesarefun wrote:passion rarely takes logic into account.

I think that may be exactly what dogma is getting at . . .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Manchu wrote:The point can be made in a better way, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure how, other than not making it.

Probably so -- and probably wise. Your argument is strong enough to speak for itself.

Frazzled wrote:
Yep covering. You can't admit when you're wrong can you.

Wrong about what?

Its a nice rhetorical trick to claim that someone is wrong, but it isn't very illustrative of what they might be wrong about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:
passion rarely takes logic into account.

As Manchu said, that's the point.

I'm just saddened you can't admit it. Its such a a minor thing.

Yes just another case of out justice (and I use the word justice quite wrongly) system being trodden on my damn do-gooders. Oh it will infringe on his human rights will it? What about the girl's right to life? What about the girl's family's right to watch their daughter grow up? In my view if you commit a crime you have no rights, why should you? If you cant live by the laws of the country you are in, like everybody else has to then you dont have the right to be protected by that country's law either. Killing him may not bring the girl back but it would certainly rid the world of one more scumbag we could do without. Prisons are overcrowded and expensive and dont prevent repeat offences. I think a much better use could be found for the land and buildings which currently are used to house people who lets face it the human race (such as it is) could well do without. Perhaps we could then turn the prisons into shelters for the homeless. So I have to admit I'm firmly in the kill em all camp.

Take it outside ladies.

Frazzled wrote:I'm just saddened you can't admit it. Its such a a minor thing.

That's a very poor attempt at deflection.

What am I wrong about?

Excommunicate Traitoris wrote: Perhaps we could then turn the prisons into shelters for the homeless.

I know people who have been arrested for being homeless, so yeah.

Well some of this is devil`s advocate and some is my own opinion.

In the grand scheme you have to look at all the factors. I am not aware of all the details but:

Was it an accident or was it negligence. From that you can come up with an aproriate sentence. The car accident may hve been just that. fine. But running from the scene, with a death involved is far worse in my mind.

Also the sentence has to accomplish several things. 1. is it punishement for the crime? 2. is it mor of a deterence (statistics will show you that the Death Penalty is not an effective deterrent) and 3. is the sentence in the public interest.

In my country we had a case of a serial killer that went to trial for several murders, they were were pretty sure he killed more but going to trial for thosewould not have served the public interest. He received the max sentence and would not get more time in jail as a result. We also had a case of a somalian born refugee who led a life of crime (no murder but drugs and gang related crap). as a result he was deported (boo hoo).

In the case of the serial killer the public interest was served in my mind, for the somalian good riddance. You were given the equivalent of a lottery win coming to Canada and instead of making something of yourself you effed up. Too bad so sad.

I am not an advocate of the death penalty by any means but in some clear cut cases I can see the validity and it is isn't a revenge/eye for eye thing nor is it a deterrent. When you have cockroaches in your house you get rid of them. It's that simple. Some creeps like Bernardo, Williams and Picton should just be exterminated because like bugs they need to be. Not revenge, not deterrent just get rid of the virus.

In cases of accidents it is different. accidents happen. how they happen is another thing. Would deporting a guy for an accident make sense? maybe not. killing him certainly wouldn't (unless you live in Iran or China). Someone killing my boy by accident is one thing on purpose is another (Like a previous poster said, my measning for life would end so any repercussions for my actions thereafter would nor be an issue.)

When we face these things emotions run high, the key is to keep it in check.

mattyrm wrote:Take it outside ladies.

I will bow to Matty's wisdom. He has pulled the battling babe fight card. Auto win for Matty.

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone, you think they should be given the death penalty?!

Even i think thats a tad harsh!

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. Did you hit a patch of black ice and skid into someone, or were you so slobbering drunk that you couldn't keep your car on the road?

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone,...

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. ...

No. It depends on what you CHOOSE to do. If your car skid on some ice and you hit someone; it's an accident.

But if you have chosen to drink and drive. Or if you've had a accident and then you decide to leave the victim alone in the middle of the street...

The rope.

I always like to think that if Frazz and Dogma were to ever meet, they'd wind up in a jovial tequila-off.

Mannahnin wrote:I always like to think that if Frazz and Dogma were to ever meet, they'd wind up in a jovial tequila-off.

Thats kind of the idea, except substitute rum for tequila. Which reminds me, I need to get some more. Hurray!

M_Stress wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

mattyrm wrote:So, on a serious note, if you ACCIDENTALLY kill someone,...

It depends on the nature of the accident, really. ...

No. It depends on what you CHOOSE to do. If your car skid on some ice and you hit someone; it's an accident.

But if you have chosen to drink and drive. Or if you've had a accident and then you decide to leave the victim alone in the middle of the street...

The rope.

Really?

There are many reason why innocent people would leave the scene of the accident. Shock, fear, being told to go.

Who knows how any of us would react in such a situation.

I have been involved in a situation where a bus was driven into. The driver responsible left his car and was found in a corner shop buying a sandwich and a can of pop. Okay, he was coming back but that guy was messed up due to the crash.

He admitted it was his fault. Thank goodness no one was seriously hurt or had to be hanged. I bet in armchair lawyer land his leaving the scene of an accident and buying of a sandwich, but coming back, would help commute this guys sentence to life.

Wilfully fleeing the scene of an accident is a crime, and causes a lot of deaths of people who could have been saved if the person fleeing had called 911. And if someone is genuinely in shock/out of their wits, they can use that as a defense.

I agree with Mannahnin here, and I also don't see why there's such a call for this guy to be deported? If he broke the law then the answer would be a fitting punishment, not to kick him out of the country. I'd suggest that the people who are arguing along that line want this guy, and people like him, out of their country regardless of whether they break the law.

Mr. Burning wrote:

There are many reason why innocent people would leave the scene of the accident. Shock, fear, being told to go.

Who knows how any of us would react in such a situation.

I completely agree with that. It is surprising how many people run away from an incident due to sheer blind panic and whilst it looks bad, inferring guilt, it is purely a fight or flight reaction and once things have calmed down a lot of these people turn themselves in. Not all, but some.

Then again, I have seen them drive off before now if the Ambulance arrives before the Police, thinking they can get away.

With this story he was convicted and was sentenced to four months prison. 6 years ago! This story is being spun with a slight angle which isn't fair, the father is grieved, I understand that, but it was a long time ago and he has done his sentence but the father is talking on the interview as is this guy is on the run.

The deportation is a different matter entirely. He is fearful of his life if he is dumped back in Iraq. I know what he means, been there twice, don't wanna go there again.

Considering that he has served his allotted time as duly issued by the court, his conviction is now spent, should he be bunged on a plane back to Iraq?

I can't stand people who drive without insurance. It's not an accident, everyone knows if they have taken out an insurance policy or not. And anyone who has no insurance or driving licence knows they are driving illegally every time they get in the car, it's as premeditated as they come, not some accident or a crime committed by someone in the heat of the moment. They know they aren't allowed behind the wheel.

It takes a fair bit to be convicted of "dangerous driving", unless you are driving like a total knob you usually get "without due care an attention".

Frankly if you are doing any combination of these things, dangerous driving, no insurance or like him you failed to stop after an accident and cleared off letting you victim die, it's manslaughter in the very least. There's something wrong with our laws in the UK covering motor vehicle deaths, people seem to be able to kill people through sheer stupidity and reckless driving and get away with almost no punishment even though they were breaking the law before the death even occurred. If you killed someone in most walks of life by showing a similar disregard for fellow humans it would be considered manslaughter, but "death by dangerous driving" is a different kettle of fish it seems and carried an inappropriately low sentence.

I don't care about his immigrant status, all illegal drivers disgust me. He was disqualified, uninsured and fled the accident leaving her wounded under his car and she died. That's near murder IMO, he should be looking at 10 years minimum, deportation should frankly be a luxury.

@various people:

1. The accident was an accident in the sense that he didn't set out to run over someone. The driver was driving while banned from driving, though, thanks to his previous record of car accidents, caused by the fact he was a fething terrible driver who didn't have a proper licence. He didn't have insurance, either.

This IMO is like waving a loaded gun with no safety catch around in a bar. If it goes off and hits someone, technically it's an accident in the sense you didn't mean to shoot them, but, well... Draw your own conclusions.

2. Having caused the accident, the driver fled the scene instead of calling for help. His decision to flee may have been based on his fear of the vicious British police -- though really, if so, why seek asylum in the UK? -- or it may have been based on the knowledge that he was driving without a licence and insurance, and had run over a young girl, and was wanted for deportation. Draw your own conclusions.

The driver gave himself up to police a bit later. This could have been due to remorse, OTOH, they had his wallet and mobile phone, which he had left at the scene, so they would have caught him anyway. Draw your own conclusions about his motive.

3. The crime was years ago. He did a short sentence for dangerous driving. Since then he has had two children with an English woman and it is on the basis of this family connection that his appeal against deportation has been granted on the basis of his right to a family life.

One might surmise that, knowing he was on the list to be deported, he deliberately fathered children in order to create a family connection to save himself from that fate. Or perhaps the condom split, and the morning after pill failed. Twice. Draw your own conclusions.


The core issue here is that clearly the authorities fethed up by not deporting him six years ago, which should have been done after he served his sentence. The judges have done their job now as required by the law, and you can't blame them.

I don't agree with not sending him back now, though. I don't care about his human rights anymore. He's had enough of my country's tax and protection, which he repaid with a series of crimes. Send him back to Iraq and let his wife and children go with him if they like to.

Kilkrazy wrote:@various people:

1. The accident was an accident in the sense that he didn't set out to run over someone. The driver was driving while banned from driving, though, thanks to his previous record of car accidents, caused by the fact he was a fething terrible driver who didn't have a proper licence. He didn't have insurance, either.

This IMO is like waving a loaded gun with no safety catch around in a bar. If it goes off and hits someone, technically it's an accident in the sense you didn't mean to shoot them, but, well... Draw your own conclusions.

Your 'loaded gun' comparison isn't perfect, but I get the gist of what you're trying to say.

2. Having caused the accident, the driver fled the scene instead of calling for help. His decision to flee may have been based on his fear of the vicious British police -- though really, if so, why seek asylum in the UK? -- or it may have been based on the knowledge that he was driving without a licence and insurance, and had run over a young girl, and was wanted for deportation. Draw your own conclusions.

The driver gave himself up to police a bit later. This could have been due to remorse, OTOH, they had his wallet and mobile phone, which he had left at the scene, so they would have caught him anyway. Draw your own conclusions about his motive.

The fact that he ran while leaving his wallet and phone at the scene suggests that he may not have been in the right state of mind when he fled.

3. The crime was years ago. He did a short sentence for dangerous driving. Since then he has had two children with an English woman and it is on the basis of this family connection that his appeal against deportation has been granted on the basis of his right to a family life.

One might surmise that, knowing he was on the list to be deported, he deliberately fathered children in order to create a family connection to save himself from that fate. Or perhaps the condom split, and the morning after pill failed. Twice. Draw your own conclusions.

Why would you have two children just to get out of deportation?

The core issue here is that clearly the authorities fethed up by not deporting him six years ago, which should have been done after he served his sentence. The judges have done their job now as required by the law, and you can't blame them.

I don't agree with not sending him back now, though. I don't care about his human rights anymore. He's had enough of my country's tax and protection, which he repaid with a series of crimes. Send him back to Iraq and let his wife and children go with him if they like to.

I don't see why deportation should be the answer here. Surely there should be a call for more appropriate punishments for driving offences? In such a case 6 months is a pathetic amount of time (although I'm not sure if this was the time he was sentenced to or he actually served).

Emperors Faithful wrote:I agree with Mannahnin here, and I also don't see why there's such a call for this guy to be deported? If he broke the law then the answer would be a fitting punishment, not to kick him out of the country. I'd suggest that the people who are arguing along that line want this guy, and people like him, out of their country regardless of whether they break the law.

That's because your a hippie.

We have enough trouble with British born scum, to want to import more. We have taken in some of the worst elements of Iraqi society. This man is a career criminal, who arrived a criminal, and still is a criminal, and when he reoffends, and he will, That victim will be a victim simply because he remained here.

I hope he kills a baby next, pissed behind the wheel of another car, I like being proved right to dellusional nicey nicey type hippie chislers.

A spiraling crime fest might actually wake some of these guardian reading arseholes up. It's all well and good to say "oh everything is alright really! It's just the media and the daily mail scare mongering!" Until something grotesque happens to your own fething kids.

Watch this space. That fether will be in the news again.

Excuse the rage, I'm ten pints in.

Sentence: Death by honey badger, they go for the nads.

Frazzled wrote:
Thats kind of the idea, except substitute rum for tequila. Which reminds me, I need to get some more. Hurray!

We will drink the liquor of my grandparents.

All this talking about drinking with dogma makes me remember a PM that I forgot to respond to...

I'm quite enjoying my lager... though I think I'll switch to Ouzo after this one...


Anyway, realistic sentence... at least 15 years or deportation.

I'm drinking whiskey.

I'm about to start cooking dinner, so I'll be popping some wine for my frakking incredible spaghetti sauce so I'll be dipping into that as well. Here's to not having any more classes until January 10th!

My whiskey and coke is also quite delicious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'm drinking whiskey.

I'm about to start cooking dinner, so I'll be popping some wine for my frakking incredible spaghetti sauce so I'll be dipping into that as well. Here's to not having any more classes until January 10th!

Uh, you read my mind.

I'm not cooking dinner, as missionaries have departed for the temple of Saint Taco, but everything else is dead on.

Ok.. damn you... Ouzo or Whiskey.... And I still have a 1.5 Liter bottle of Palm... best beer on the planet...Belgians know their stuff...