So it isn’t just a crime is a crime and there are no age limits. The toddler doesn’t have the capacity to understand that he or she has committed a crime.
3 Likes
Intent, I’ll repeat intent, for the love of God.
I am pretty certain we are not talking toddlers in the majority of cases and how many of them would actually go to court. This is predominantly about teenagers who should know better but if they are allowed to get off because they have been disadvantaged It is wrong. How do you get to an opinion that somebody has been disadvantaged ? Is the next question.
Was I disadvantaged because I grew up with 3 brothers and a sister in a small bungalow.
I knew what was right and wrong otherwise I would have got the shit beat out of me.
Bollocks I was disadvantaged all these years.
People get tried for manslaughter all the time.
No intent is implied there.
2 Likes
I have thought about this some more.
What they are proposing is that someones disadvantaged / ethnic backgrounds should be taken into account when sentencing youth offenders - I struggle with this because committing crimes usually comes down to choice. For every little git who chooses to commit the crime, there are ten others of similar ethnicity and social circumstances that choose not to and are law abiding
I hate this sheep dip approach to law making as they rarely get it right. Yes there will be some that have mitigating circumstances as Intiniki pointed out, but equally there are the shitbags as Barry described who should not get any lenency just because they happen to be from an ethnic or disadvantaged background
So you would take the toddler to court, or are you retracting this?
So a toddler taking some sweets inadvertently is the same as manslaughter?
Have a word, Pap Jesus wept.
For a start they would be different charges, lets stick to the post and not splitting hairs on what could possibly be the most pedantic point written by yourself.
It happens though, Rotherham for one, white vulnerable children were trodden on and forgotten about due to cultural sensitivities.
This is now widely acknowledged.
It’s not pedantry. You say intent is important. The law will prosecute individuals for manslaughter.
The only person trying to equate shoplifting with manslaughter is you.
Pray tell, did I mention manslaughter?
When you suggested that I thought it was the same as a toddler nicking sweets.
You’re all over the fucking place on this one, guv. A natural consequence of typing without thinking.
It’s ok. No intent is implied.
2 Likes
So from that that I take it I didn’t, thank you, no I am quite sure of my position Pap. don’t presume Pap thats my advice. If you think its the same I suggest to you why they’re different crimes and sentencing.
And, according to you, if those kids then committed a crime (say prostitution or drug-use) they should be locked up because they should know right from wrong. The fact that they had a shitty childhood and were abused and exploited is irrelevant.
THEY SHOULD KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG!!!
3 Likes
Oh, and that toddler meant to take the sweets, so there was intent. Therefore, that’s worse than manslaughter.
1 Like
So a crime has been committed then? Or not? Age of responsibility once again.
Where have I said they should go to prison?
I got word this morning that I am being prosecute for going 35 in a 30 
Is there anything in this thread that can help me? Am willing to black up, if it means i don’t have to sit through the fkn speed awareness course again rip
2 Likes
Just tell them it was the middle of winter and the noisy neighbours woke you up from Hibernation and you were scared it will be fine. Or fined
one or the other
2 Likes
Just a quick general note, there is now an operational camera covering the bus lane on Shirley High St approaching the Foyes Corner / Howard Road junction. If you creep into the bastard by a mere metre, SCC will bill your arse. The Mrs said on the weekend that she’d read it’s the 12th most productive camera in the country!