Privacy and the State

[ahinton]

That sort of remark gives one pause about the whole concept of Universal Suffrage.

I'd submit that it might give some people pause about quite a lot more than even that.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

No, I do not.

So, can I understand you to mean that you believe that there should be one and only one penalty for breaking a law, and that the offender's/s' motives, personal circumstances, health or whatever should have no influence on the enactment of that penalty?

[french frank]

Is that it? Nothing more to add?

I think you should be addressing the question to yourself, considering my post had been a reply to your point and put a question to you.

[ahinton]

So, can I understand you to mean that you believe that there should be one and only one penalty for breaking a law, and that the offender's/s' motives, personal circumstances, health or whatever should have no influence on the enactment of that penalty?

I cannot and would not seek to answer for him but, were that to be the case, he would presumably not accept the crime of manslaughter in principle on the grounds that to take another person's life under any circumstances (other, perhaps, than with that person's prior express consent) must be murder; one wonders whether he would go farther and set a fixed term sentence for the taking of another person's life, irrespective of any of the circumstances of the crime.

[Mr Pee]

So, can I understand you to mean that you believe that there should be one and only one penalty for breaking a law, and that the offender's/s' motives, personal circumstances, health or whatever should have no influence on the enactment of that penalty?

I replied in the manner I did because your answer to my point was equally simplistic.

But in the case of murder- and in the absence of the death penalty- a long prison sentence should be the only option.

[Mr Pee]

I think you should be addressing the question to yourself, considering my post had been a reply to your point and put a question to you.

Fair enough, it's just that I think it would be nice if Am51 actually came out with some coherent arguments for a change, rather than relying on others to answer for him.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I replied in the manner I did because your answer to my point was equally simplistic.

But you're own question required such a "simplistic" (yes/no) answer. I believe that "leniency" is a vital a part of "Justice" - that an offender's mental state at the time of offending is something that has to be taken into account and any due allowances made. There cannot be "full force of the Law" if there is not also "leniency".

But in the case of murder- and in the absence of the death penalty- a long prison sentence should be the only option.

Regardless of the mental state of the murderer? Someone kills a chance passer-by because they believe that s/he wishes to hurt them, gets the same sentence as someone else who callously and with malice aforethought commits a murder?

[ahinton]

in the case of murder- and in the absence of the death penalty- a long prison sentence should be the only option.

But would you
(a) seek to have all cases of the taking of another person's life without that person's consent classified as murder and/or
(b) expect all prison sentences handed down for the taking of another person's life without that person's consent to be of equal duration
in each case irrespective of any or all circumstances of the case other than the actual taking of life?

Furthermore, might your reference to "the absence of the death penalty" (which, as you may know, is against the law in all EU countries so could not be reintroduced in UK while it remains a member state) be taken to imply that you have any problem with said absence?

[ahinton]

But you're own question required such a "simplistic" (yes/no) answer. I believe that "leniency" is a vital a part of "Justice" - that an offender's mental state at the time of offending is something that has to be taken into account and any due allowances made. There cannot be "full force of the Law" if there is not also "leniency".

Quite.

Regardless of the mental state of the murderer? Someone kills a chance passer-by because they believe that s/he wishes to hurt them, gets the same sentence as someone else who callously and with malice aforethought commits a murder?

Indeed; should someone who can be proved beyond doubt to have intended to take another person's life without that person's consent receive an identical sentence to someone who caused another person's death by accident? And what about someone charged with assisting another person's suicide (i.e. with the consent of that other person)?

Mr Pee may not subscribe in principle to such a monochromatic judicial world but it would be helpful in understanding the arguments he might like to offer here if his views on such matters be revealed in some detail.

[Frances_iom]

as a bit of light relief - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER (sorry about the title nothing to do with homophobia etc) - I get the impression that some of those posting in this thread might well have fitted well into the security system described within.

[Mr Pee]

Regardless of the mental state of the murderer? Someone kills a chance passer-by because they believe that s/he wishes to hurt them, gets the same sentence as someone else who callously and with malice aforethought commits a murder?

A long prison sentence. Murder is murder. If there are grounds for leniency then the charge would almost certainly be manslaughter anyway.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

A long prison sentence. Murder is murder. If there are grounds for leniency then the charge would almost certainly be manslaughter anyway.

Then I come back to your earlier question:

If another dysfunctional individual had a moment of madness and murdered his neighbour, do think leniency should apply?

... "dysfunctional" "moment of madness" - would the charge be "murder" in the first place, murder being murder? With these qualifications (that you included with no nudging from anyone else) could the term "murder" be appropriate?

[french frank]

as a bit of light relief - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER (sorry about the title nothing to do with homophobia etc) - I get the impression that some of those posting in this thread might well have fitted well into the security system drescribed within.

Haven't got time to check the whole thing, but it is worth bookmarking. Loved the MI5 report on C Day Lewis who was kept under surveillance for several weeks as a potential communist:

"Day-Lewis seldom wears a hat, and is not altogether of smart appearance in dress. He is a good singer. He has moved into his cottage after having considerable structural improvements done there."

[scottycelt]

as a bit of light relief - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER (sorry about the title nothing to do with homophobia etc) - I get the impression that some of those posting in this thread might well have fitted well into the security system drescribed within.

Every time somebody walks into a supermarket/shop and many other public places they are being observed by the 'security system'.

Occasionally on a warm summer's day this year I have entered my local supermarket wearing a baseball cap, dark glasses and a large bag. On each occasion I have been aware of the close presence of a security officer and that the hidden cameras are firmly fixed on me (I worked for many years in retail!!). That is the job of security. To me, that's perfectly natural. I don't consider it odd or unfathomable. If I were currently involved in retail security I'd have been watching me, myself!

What is so difficult to understand for some of those posting in this thread about the need for constant vigilance and surveillance to combat internal crime or external attack?

[amateur51]

Every time somebody walks into a supermarket/shop and many other public places they are being observed by the 'security system'.

Occasionally on a warm summer's day this year I have entered my local supermarket wearing a baseball cap, dark glasses and a large bag. On each occasion I have been aware of the close presence of a security officer and that the hidden cameras are firmly fixed on me (I worked for many years in retail!!). That is the job of security. To me, that's perfectly natural. I don't consider it odd or unfathomable. If I were currently involved in retail security I'd have been watching me, myself!

What is so difficult to understand for some of those posting in this thread about the need for constant vigilance and surveillance to combat internal crime or external attack?

This meander is nothing to do with the Adam Curtis film to which Frances has linked.

The film is a hoot - several hoots in fact.