London St Paul's bomb plot: IS supporter Safiyya Shaikh 'got cold feet'

[littlebabyjesus]

It wouldn't be murder. Judicial executions are, by definition, lawful.

By your definition.

 

[Spymaster]

By your definition.

Nope. Anyone's who isn't stupid.

Murder is defined legally.

 

[A380]

Nope. Anyone's who isn't stupid.

Murder is defined legally.

Not sure it is in statute. I think in England and Wales it’s a common law jobby. Something about a bloke killing a gamekeeper in 1256 or something.

I mean there’s obviously a shedload of precedent and several statutes around the edges but murder itself no.

On 28 June 2020 at Chelmsford in the County of Essex you did murder John Smith contrary to common law.


I’m sure Athos or someone can tell me why I’ve horribly over simplified this...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nope. Anyone's who isn't stupid.

Murder is defined legally.

Murder is defined according to a set of shared values. That may or may not involve a formal legal system, and any formal legal system's set parameters are disputable.

To illustrate the shortcomings of your approach, I would give an analogy with the case of rape. Extraordinarily in this country up to 1991, no man could be convicted of raping his wife. One could not rape one's wife, according to the law in the UK up to 1991. Amazing really to think this was only changed so recently. But in the year 1990, was a person's definition of rape here in the UK constrained by what the law said? The law can be wrong, you know.

 

[Spymaster]

Not sure it is in statute. I think in England and Wales it’s a common law jobby. Something about a bloke killing a gamekeeper in 1256 or something.

Well it's the intention to cause death or serious injury unlawfully, isn't it.

Given that a state execution isn't unlawful it can't be murder. "State murder" is just one of those silly bits of hyperbole we get round these parts.

 

[Spymaster]

The law can be wrong, you know.

Show me a definition of murder that could reasoanably apply to judicial execution.

(Not one that you make up yourself!)

 

[andysays]

Well it's the intention to cause death or serious injury unlawfully, isn't it.

Given that a state execution isn't unlawful it can't be murder. "State murder" is just one of those silly bits of hyperbole we get round these parts.

I realise you're currently getting your jollies from the thought of this unfortunate woman being executed, but a state execution certainly isn't legal in Britain, even if it is in your fantasy world.

 

[Pickman's model]

Murder is defined according to a set of shared values. That may or may not involve a formal legal system, and any formal legal system's set parameters are disputable.

So what were the shared values (and who did they belong to) which are behind the UK def of murder?

 

[A380]

Well it's the intention to cause death or serious injury unlawfully, isn't it.

Given that a state execution isn't unlawful it can't be murder. "State murder" is just one of those silly bits of hyperbole we get round these parts.

That’s the bizarre thing though isn’t it. There is no written law for murder, and yet for say, fare dodging on the underground, there is pages of the stuff. A charge sheet for that would probably run to half a page of A4 for each offence.

 

[Spymaster]

I realise you're currently getting your jollies from the thought of this unfortunate woman being executed, but a state execution certainly isn't legal in Britain

Keep clutching them straws, Andy!

 

[nogojones]

Well it's the intention to cause death or serious injury unlawfully, isn't it.

Given that a state execution isn't unlawful it can't be murder. "State murder" is just one of those silly bits of hyperbole we get round these parts.

So mass killing committed by a state (shall we say Germany in the 40's?) is fine because it was technically legal?

 

[Spymaster]

So mass killing committed by a state (shall we say Germany in the 40's?) is fine because it was technically legal?

Yep, that's exactly what I mean.

Mass killing by states is fine. You got me bang to rights there.

 

[nogojones]

Yep, that's exactly what I mean.

Mass killing by states is fine. You got me bang to rights there.

Cool. I always like to know exactly where people stand

 

[Spymaster]

Cool. I always like to know exactly where people stand

With critical faculties like that, you're probably short-changing yourself.

 

[platinumsage]

Not sure it is in statute. I think in England and Wales it’s a common law jobby. Something about a bloke killing a gamekeeper in 1256 or something.

I mean there’s obviously a shedload of precedent and several statutes around the edges but murder itself no.

On 28 June 2020 at Chelmsford in the County of Essex you did murder John Smith contrary to common law.

I’m sure Athos or someone can tell me why I’ve horribly over simplified this...

It used to be far less simple, here's a single sentence from an old court case charging someone with murder:

Spoiler

You stand indicted by the name of Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, late of the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields, in the county of Middlesex, for that you not having the fear of God before your eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, the 4th of February, in the 30th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. with force and arms, at the parish afore said, in the county afore said, in and upon one Nathaniel Cony, Gent. in the Peace of God, and of our said Sovereign Lord the King, then and there being, feloniously, voluntarily, and of your malice forethought, did make an assault; and that you the said Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, with the right fist of you the said Philip, &c. the said Nathaniel Cony, in and upon the left part of the head of the said Nathaniel Cony, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice aforethought, did strike and bruise, and him the said Nathaniel Cony, with your right fist aforesaid, did beat and throw down to the ground; and that you the said Philip, &c. the said Nathaniel Cony so lying upon the ground, in and upon the head, neck, breast, belly, sides and back, of him the said Nathaniel Cony, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice before-thought did strike and kick, by reason of which said kicking and bruising of the said Nathaniel Cony, on the said left part of the head of the said Nathaniel Cony, with the said fist of you the said Philip, &c. and of the beating and throwing him to the ground afore said; and also by reason of kicking of the said Nathaniel Cony with the said feet of you the said Philip, &c. on the head, neck, breast, belly, sides and back of the said Nathaniel, he the said Nathaniel Cony, from the afore said 4th day of February in the afore said year, to the 10th of the same month of February, in the parish afore said, did languish, and languishing did live; on which said 10th day of February in the year afore said, he the said Nathaniel Cony, of the striking and bruising, beating and kicking, died; and so you the said Philip, &c. the said Nathaniel Cony, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, voluntarily, and of your malice forethought, did kill and murther, against the peace of our said Sovereign Lord the King, his crown and dignity.

 

[A380]

It used to be far less simple, here's a single sentence from an old court case charging someone with murder:

Spoiler

You stand indicted by the name of Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, late of the parish of St. Martin's in the Fields, in the county of Middlesex, for that you not having the fear of God before your eyes, but being moved and seduced by the instigation of the devil, the 4th of February, in the 30th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord Charles the Second, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. with force and arms, at the parish afore said, in the county afore said, in and upon one Nathaniel Cony, Gent. in the Peace of God, and of our said Sovereign Lord the King, then and there being, feloniously, voluntarily, and of your malice forethought, did make an assault; and that you the said Philip, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, with the right fist of you the said Philip, &c. the said Nathaniel Cony, in and upon the left part of the head of the said Nathaniel Cony, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice aforethought, did strike and bruise, and him the said Nathaniel Cony, with your right fist aforesaid, did beat and throw down to the ground; and that you the said Philip, &c. the said Nathaniel Cony so lying upon the ground, in and upon the head, neck, breast, belly, sides and back, of him the said Nathaniel Cony, then and there feloniously, wilfully, and of your malice before-thought did strike and kick, by reason of which said kicking and bruising of the said Nathaniel Cony, on the said left part of the head of the said Nathaniel Cony, with the said fist of you the said Philip, &c. and of the beating and throwing him to the ground afore said; and also by reason of kicking of the said Nathaniel Cony with the said feet of you the said Philip, &c. on the head, neck, breast, belly, sides and back of the said Nathaniel, he the said Nathaniel Cony, from the afore said 4th day of February in the afore said year, to the 10th of the same month of February, in the parish afore said, did languish, and languishing did live; on which said 10th day of February in the year afore said, he the said Nathaniel Cony, of the striking and bruising, beating and kicking, died; and so you the said Philip, &c. the said Nathaniel Cony, at the parish aforesaid, in the county aforesaid, in manner and form aforesaid, feloniously, voluntarily, and of your malice forethought, did kill and murther, against the peace of our said Sovereign Lord the King, his crown and dignity.

If they did this today “24 Hours in Police Custody” would need to renamed “26 and a half hours...”

 

[MickiQ]

I may support the death penalty for clear cut guilty cases like child killer Ian Huntley who was the embodiment of pure evil.

We can all draw up a list of people we think deserve to die, but even then not everyone will include the same people on their list.
But you will always come back to the problem that there is no absolute way of separating the guilty and the unjustly convicted

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We can all draw up a list of people we think deserve to die, but even then not everyone will include the same people on their list.
But you will always come back to the problem that there is no absolute way of separating the guilty and the unjustly convicted

Asking 'do they deserve to die?' is the wrong question. The question is 'should we kill them?'

 

[Spymaster]

But you will always come back to the problem that there is no absolute way of separating the guilty and the unjustly convicted

There are cases where guilt is beyond doubt. Take any of the attacks where the perps are caught in the act. The arsewipe who stabbed those lads in Reading last week is an obvious recent example.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Show me a definition of murder that could reasoanably apply to judicial execution.

(Not one that you make up yourself!)

Are you asking me to quote the dictionary at you?

That's not how definition works, you know. Dictionaries record definitions. They do not create them.

Rather, I'll give you an example of 'state murder'. (And this was already a murder before his conviction was finally overturned generations later.)

George Stinney - Wikipedia

 

[Spymaster]

Are you asking me to quote the dictionary at you?

No. I'm asking you to show me a definition of murder that could apply to judicial execution.

 

[Ax^]

I'd like to see anything that provide evidence that Executions from the state will stop people becoming radicalised


or even reduced the crime rate

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No. I'm asking you to show me a definition of murder that could apply to judicial execution.

See my edit. I've gone one better than giving a definition by giving an example. I have no problem with calling the governor of South Carolina and others involved murderers. That's what they were.

 

[scifisam]

No. I'm asking you to show me a definition of murder that could apply to judicial execution.

Don't be ridiculous. Murder is not just a judicial term.

 

[Spymaster]

Don't be ridiculous. Murder is not just a judicial term.

Then you too will be able to show me a definition of murder that does not require it to be unlawful.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Then you too will be able to show me a definition of murder that does not require it to be unlawful.

You have everything topsy-turvy. A thing is made illegal because it's considered wrong, not the other way round.

A state judicial system can be, and often is, a very effective instrument of murder.

 

[platinumsage]

No. I'm asking you to show me a definition of murder that could apply to judicial execution.

In my quote above, the victim was stated as being at the time of the assault "in the Peace of God, and of our said Sovereign Lord the King". This was important to establish in murder cases because someone not in the King's peace (e.g. an outlaw. or someone sentenced to death) could be lawfully killed.

 

[Spymaster]

You have everything topsy-turvy. A thing is made illegal because it's considered wrong, not the other way round.

Nonsense. How are you getting on with that definition?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nonsense. How are you getting on with that definition?

I gave you an example ffs

 

[scifisam]

Then you too will be able to show me a definition of murder that does not require it to be unlawful.

Are you serious?

Like with the definition of rape talked about above - was it not really rape because it wasn't defined by those terms legally? It was still rape.