Further to that, it does not matter what an individual's motives are for having an abortion. It is their right and their right alone, Gamma Gamaliel.
I didn't say otherwise. I was responding to what @Pomona posted because how they'd phrased it sounded like a sinister form of social engineering.
Pomona has clarified what they meant.
And @North East Quine my response was aimed at Pomona's post not yours.
It's not my intention to get into an Epiphanies style debate about abortion. I was simply taken aback by it being cited in this particular context.
On the issue of 'qualities' or 'degrees' of murder, UK law has the concept of 'manslaughter' as opposed to outright deliberate murder. US law has 'degrees' of murder - 'Murder in the third degree' etc.
Which sounds rather Masonic but I understand what the terms represent.
Terms like 'manslaughter' don't apply of course to the kind of 'homicides' we've been discussing here. I put that in inverted commas because it's not a term we tend to use over here, not in a 'scare quotes' way.
There was a landmark case here in the UK recently where a judge waived the 'standard' tariff for a killing as the bloke who was killed had been a serious serial abuser who had inflicted tremendous damage on his partner who killed him.
Further to that, it does not matter what an individual's motives are for having an abortion. It is their right and their right alone, Gamma Gamaliel.
I didn't say otherwise. I was responding to what @Pomona posted because how they'd phrased it sounded like a sinister form of social engineering.
Pomona has clarified what they meant.
And @North East Quine my response was aimed at Pomona's post not yours.
It's not my intention to get into an Epiphanies style debate about abortion. I was simply taken aback by it being cited in this particular context.
On the issue of 'qualities' or 'degrees' of murder, UK law has the concept of 'manslaughter' as opposed to outright deliberate murder. US law has 'degrees' of murder - 'Murder in the third degree' etc.
Which sounds rather Masonic but I understand what the terms represent.
Terms like 'manslaughter' don't apply of course to the kind of 'homicides' we've been discussing here. I put that in inverted commas because it's not a term we tend to use over here, not in a 'scare quotes' way.
There was a landmark case here in the UK recently where a judge waived the 'standard' tariff for a killing as the bloke who was killed had been a serious serial abuser who had inflicted tremendous damage on his partner who killed him.
No, manslaughter and murder are different crimes and manslaughter is found in most US states as well as Canada.
Degrees of murder (in Canada we first and second degree murder and manslaughter) distinguish the amount of premeditation, the target (killing a law enforcement officer in the line of duty is often classified as first-degree murder) or the type of action (murder in tbe course of another crime).
The degrees of murder often stem from past efforts to reduce or abolish the death penalty where death was abolished as tbe penalty for second-degree murder but retained for first-degree murder.
As @Nick Tamen said, when there are, what?, at least 55 (hope that's right) jurisdictions in the US, it is hard to summarize what determines the class of homicide for every jurisdiction. Here are the classes of homicide in Washington State.
Murder in the first degree--premeditated, planned, an act with extreme indifference to human life, caused during certain felonies.
Murder in the second degree: intentional killing without premeditation, Felony murder during any felony.
Aggravated First Degree Murder--killing of a police officer or judge
Homicide by abuse--has a pattern of abuse against a child, dependent adult or vulnerable person.
Manslaughter in the first degree--recklessly cause another's death, to intentionally and unlawfully kill an unborn quick child.
Manslaughter in the second degree--a death caused by criminal negligence.
Excusable Homicide, covers accidental death without criminal negligence,
Justifiable homicide--includes lawful self-defense or defense of others.
@Bullfrog, all I was saying, was that here (I am in the UK) if you are going to get murdered, you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know, probably close to you, than a complete stranger. That may be different in a country where people wander around armed.
Most folks around here don't walk around armed, and as far as I can see it, it's pretty much the same.
And I'd also say that while murder is never "reasonable," there are always reasons for violence. Often they're terrible reasons, but I think it's a kind of naivete to pretend that violence is "senseless" when people often have an internally logical reason for engaging in it. Just because someone had a reason to do something terrible doesn't make it justified, nor does it make it right.
FWIW according to Julia Shaw the commonest scenario in which someone gets murdered is a fight that gets out of hand.
ETA she said this in an episode of Bad People, a podcast about the psychology of why people do terrible things.
That fits with my own experience. My sister’s ex’s family had a teenager who killed his cousin in a drunken brawl. I knew him (we were the same age) and I would never have expected it to happen.
And it's sadly not unknown for someone to be killed by a single punch.
@Enoch sorry, by talking about preventing murders I mean in terms of societal programmes like anti-radicalisation programmes (although Prevent itself is notoriously not good at this), better and more joined-up mental healthcare especially in schools, etc. I didn't mean to suggest that victims could have somehow prevented their murders; I meant preventing the factors that cause murders.
Surestart was one of the most effective programs in preventing the development of anti-social behaviour and improving children’s outcomes - another thing Gordon Brown did for which he gets little credit.
FWIW according to Julia Shaw the commonest scenario in which someone gets murdered is a fight that gets out of hand.
ETA she said this in an episode of Bad People, a podcast about the psychology of why people do terrible things.
That fits with my own experience. My sister’s ex’s family had a teenager who killed his cousin in a drunken brawl. I knew him (we were the same age) and I would never have expected it to happen.
That reminds me of a personal horror story...
Let's say I know someone who had a horrible marriage. For a while, long time ago, his now-ex-wife confided to me that he was a terrible drunk. He has accused her of lying, of course. Knowing him at some distance, I concluded that there was literally no way in hell I could ascertain the truth value of her allegations, and honestly, I didn't care. If she were telling the truth, then he was at that point an out-of-control alcoholic who needed to get his shit together. If lying, she was trying via vicious slander to poison some of his oldest friendships for spite. Sadly, by all evidence I possess, either ugly interpretation is possible. I could even go all in with "both." He was a drunk and she was outing - perhaps exaggerating - his misdeeds to hurt him in revenge for how he hurt her.
Either way, that was a relationship that needed to end, and it did, aside from custody, which isn't my affair to meddle in. I don't have a relationship with his ex, which is just as well, and I still interact with him socially and support him as I am able. I believe he is generally a good man.
I am very aware that otherwise-decent-people can sometimes do appalling things under bad influences. And I do earnestly believe in the power of earnest repentance. And what he has been, one way or the other, isn't my place to judge. As a friend, it might be my place to heal.
Surestart was one of the most effective programs in preventing the development of anti-social behaviour and improving children’s outcomes - another thing Gordon Brown did for which he gets little credit.
I agree, also youth clubs and youth outreach work which has been decimated by austerity. I'd also argue that for-profit companies dominating education via the academy system and universities doesn't help either.
I found the response from a lot of Americans commenting on the event (not generalising about Americans, this is literally just about the people commenting who said they were American) cheering him for "protecting his family" to be really shocking. Introducing a gun into the situation dramatically increases the risk of being killed, even if it's a self-defence situation. The best thing to do in terms of self-defence is de-escalation. You want to be Benson and not Stabler in that situation. Obviously that's easier said than done though.
Remember that in the US, police officers routinely carry a sidearm, and it is normal enough for police officers to hold a suspect at gunpoint until they are subdued. In that context, a homeowner doing the same thing in their home doesn't look unreasonable.
In the UK, where police officers are not routinely armed, the occasional sight of uniformed officers carrying MP5s is kind of shocking in itself. Different contexts...
I found the response from a lot of Americans commenting on the event (not generalising about Americans, this is literally just about the people commenting who said they were American) cheering him for "protecting his family" to be really shocking. Introducing a gun into the situation dramatically increases the risk of being killed, even if it's a self-defence situation. The best thing to do in terms of self-defence is de-escalation. You want to be Benson and not Stabler in that situation. Obviously that's easier said than done though.
Remember that in the US, police officers routinely carry a sidearm, and it is normal enough for police officers to hold a suspect at gunpoint until they are subdued. In that context, a homeowner doing the same thing in their home doesn't look unreasonable.
In the UK, where police officers are not routinely armed, the occasional sight of uniformed officers carrying MP5s is kind of shocking in itself. Different contexts...
In the USA, speaking from the USA, there are considerable debates over the ethics of firearms in home defense. That said, there is certainly a large cadre of people who are quite proud of being willing to defend their home against intruders, because they are convinced that they live in a world with "Bad people" who they must defend themselves against. I would suspect that many such people are basing their understanding of "Bad people" on personal experience, aka they've been victimized and don't want to go through that again. Or they see stories on the news and get scared. Having the means of personal protection on hand makes a body feel safer from "Bad people" who might not be easily persuaded to de-escalate without some kind of incentive.
"Reasonable" is a subjective word even here. It depends on who you talk to, and people can get into serious debates, even arguments about the role of privately owned firearms in public safety.
I also don't think this is uniquely an American experience.
Pardon the double-post, got lots of thoughts on this one:
I read an article years ago, on a "comedy" website called Cracked, in which they interviewed a couple of British police officers about, among other things, how they felt about carrying firearms. And these officers said that if they had to do their job in the USA, where carrying weapons was licit, they would never want to do their job without a sidearm. It just wouldn't be safe.
And I have seen American officers engage in de-escalation tactics, even with guns strapped to their belts. It's a thing people do. But since guns are potentially a thing here, you always need to be prepared for the possibility, which adds a certain anxiety to the profession. I don't think it's good for anyone involved, really.
For what it's worth, I'm generally in favor of gun control, but I also appreciate that there are an awful lot of pesky nuances in the conversation that hard partisans miss.
Comments
No, manslaughter and murder are different crimes and manslaughter is found in most US states as well as Canada.
Degrees of murder (in Canada we first and second degree murder and manslaughter) distinguish the amount of premeditation, the target (killing a law enforcement officer in the line of duty is often classified as first-degree murder) or the type of action (murder in tbe course of another crime).
The degrees of murder often stem from past efforts to reduce or abolish the death penalty where death was abolished as tbe penalty for second-degree murder but retained for first-degree murder.
Murder in the first degree--premeditated, planned, an act with extreme indifference to human life, caused during certain felonies.
Murder in the second degree: intentional killing without premeditation, Felony murder during any felony.
Aggravated First Degree Murder--killing of a police officer or judge
Homicide by abuse--has a pattern of abuse against a child, dependent adult or vulnerable person.
Manslaughter in the first degree--recklessly cause another's death, to intentionally and unlawfully kill an unborn quick child.
Manslaughter in the second degree--a death caused by criminal negligence.
Excusable Homicide, covers accidental death without criminal negligence,
Justifiable homicide--includes lawful self-defense or defense of others.
Most folks around here don't walk around armed, and as far as I can see it, it's pretty much the same.
And I'd also say that while murder is never "reasonable," there are always reasons for violence. Often they're terrible reasons, but I think it's a kind of naivete to pretend that violence is "senseless" when people often have an internally logical reason for engaging in it. Just because someone had a reason to do something terrible doesn't make it justified, nor does it make it right.
@Enoch sorry, by talking about preventing murders I mean in terms of societal programmes like anti-radicalisation programmes (although Prevent itself is notoriously not good at this), better and more joined-up mental healthcare especially in schools, etc. I didn't mean to suggest that victims could have somehow prevented their murders; I meant preventing the factors that cause murders.
That reminds me of a personal horror story...
Let's say I know someone who had a horrible marriage. For a while, long time ago, his now-ex-wife confided to me that he was a terrible drunk. He has accused her of lying, of course. Knowing him at some distance, I concluded that there was literally no way in hell I could ascertain the truth value of her allegations, and honestly, I didn't care. If she were telling the truth, then he was at that point an out-of-control alcoholic who needed to get his shit together. If lying, she was trying via vicious slander to poison some of his oldest friendships for spite. Sadly, by all evidence I possess, either ugly interpretation is possible. I could even go all in with "both." He was a drunk and she was outing - perhaps exaggerating - his misdeeds to hurt him in revenge for how he hurt her.
Either way, that was a relationship that needed to end, and it did, aside from custody, which isn't my affair to meddle in. I don't have a relationship with his ex, which is just as well, and I still interact with him socially and support him as I am able. I believe he is generally a good man.
I am very aware that otherwise-decent-people can sometimes do appalling things under bad influences. And I do earnestly believe in the power of earnest repentance. And what he has been, one way or the other, isn't my place to judge. As a friend, it might be my place to heal.
I agree, also youth clubs and youth outreach work which has been decimated by austerity. I'd also argue that for-profit companies dominating education via the academy system and universities doesn't help either.
Remember that in the US, police officers routinely carry a sidearm, and it is normal enough for police officers to hold a suspect at gunpoint until they are subdued. In that context, a homeowner doing the same thing in their home doesn't look unreasonable.
In the UK, where police officers are not routinely armed, the occasional sight of uniformed officers carrying MP5s is kind of shocking in itself. Different contexts...
In the USA, speaking from the USA, there are considerable debates over the ethics of firearms in home defense. That said, there is certainly a large cadre of people who are quite proud of being willing to defend their home against intruders, because they are convinced that they live in a world with "Bad people" who they must defend themselves against. I would suspect that many such people are basing their understanding of "Bad people" on personal experience, aka they've been victimized and don't want to go through that again. Or they see stories on the news and get scared. Having the means of personal protection on hand makes a body feel safer from "Bad people" who might not be easily persuaded to de-escalate without some kind of incentive.
"Reasonable" is a subjective word even here. It depends on who you talk to, and people can get into serious debates, even arguments about the role of privately owned firearms in public safety.
I also don't think this is uniquely an American experience.
I read an article years ago, on a "comedy" website called Cracked, in which they interviewed a couple of British police officers about, among other things, how they felt about carrying firearms. And these officers said that if they had to do their job in the USA, where carrying weapons was licit, they would never want to do their job without a sidearm. It just wouldn't be safe.
And I have seen American officers engage in de-escalation tactics, even with guns strapped to their belts. It's a thing people do. But since guns are potentially a thing here, you always need to be prepared for the possibility, which adds a certain anxiety to the profession. I don't think it's good for anyone involved, really.
For what it's worth, I'm generally in favor of gun control, but I also appreciate that there are an awful lot of pesky nuances in the conversation that hard partisans miss.