Roland Perry wrote:
In message .com, at
03:30:17 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Pyromancer
remarked:

I think, given the object is to prevent executing someone who's
innocent, then that would still only count as "one act of murder", even
if it killed more than one person.

It might under some ideal system that you have in your head, but how do
you know that a similar issue that you hadn't predicted would arise in a
few years time? The way law and sentencing works is largely reaction to
unexpected things happening in real life, rather than what the
legislators were able to predict.

No system can be perfect, but with a little common sense, and a
presumption to always err on the side of caution, it can be made to
work. That's why we have human judges and juries, and not sentencing
by (say) computer.

To be executed in the system I'm proposing, someone would have had to
be convicted, beyond all reasonable doubt, of two seperate "acts".

In this case, one act is killing the mother, and the other act is
killing the child. The argument which has arisen is that it doesn't
matter whether the child was in the mother's arms, or womb, at the time.

No no, I'm talking about entirely seperate "acts" - in different places
or different timeframes. Even if someone planted a bomb that killed 50
people, from the death penalty POV it'd still be one act - the bomb
itself. If they then went on to shoot or stab someone somewhere else
(and left enough evidence in both cases for completely sound
convictions), that would be a different act.

The objective is not to start hanging people left right and centre, but
only to do so for clear, serial offences.

In message om, at
10:10:57 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Pyromancer
remarked:
It might under some ideal system that you have in your head, but how do
you know that a similar issue that you hadn't predicted would arise in a
few years time? The way law and sentencing works is largely reaction to
unexpected things happening in real life, rather than what the
legislators were able to predict.

No system can be perfect, but with a little common sense, and a
presumption to always err on the side of caution, it can be made to
work. That's why we have human judges and juries, and not sentencing
by (say) computer.

To be executed in the system I'm proposing, someone would have had to
be convicted, beyond all reasonable doubt, of two seperate "acts".

In this case, one act is killing the mother, and the other act is
killing the child. The argument which has arisen is that it doesn't
matter whether the child was in the mother's arms, or womb, at the time.

No no, I'm talking about entirely seperate "acts" - in different places
or different timeframes. Even if someone planted a bomb that killed 50
people, from the death penalty POV it'd still be one act - the bomb
itself. If they then went on to shoot or stab someone somewhere else
(and left enough evidence in both cases for completely sound
convictions), that would be a different act.

The objective is not to start hanging people left right and centre, but
only to do so for clear, serial offences.

This is all hopelessly idealistic in the real world of criminal justice
systems. Never mind, you are allowed to dream.
--
Roland Perry

Upon the miasma of midnight, a darkling spirit identified as Roland
Perry gently breathed:

The objective is not to start hanging people left right and centre, but
only to do so for clear, serial offences.

This is all hopelessly idealistic in the real world of criminal justice
systems. Never mind, you are allowed to dream.

Well, TBH the criminal justice system is probably one of the placed we
really need to be as idealistic as possible - getting it wrong tends to
have very serious consequences, and not just regarding the death
penalty.

It's been a very interesting thread - thanks to all who contributed.

--
- DJ Pyromancer, The Sunday Goth Social, Leeds. http://www.sheepish.net

Broadband, Dialup, Domains = http://www.wytches.net = The UK's Pagan ISP!
http://www.inkubus-sukkubus.co.uk http://www.revival.stormshadow.com