You say cases should be treated on merit yet you seem to want standard sentencing.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You say cases should be treated on merit yet you seem to want standard sentencing.
You can't have it both ways.
The lesser educated posters are referring to scientific descriptions about beams light whilst attempting to somehow discredit the 'colour' black.Noseall,
Please explain how (in a discussion about colour perception), you can consider the nature of the matter without considering the "light"?
My view is that in an unprovoked attack where a person is killed, (note the use of 'killed' not 'dies') the assailant should have to answer in full. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, 'I didn't mean it' doesn't cut it for me.
You too are on about light and not matter.A perfect black is the absence of all colour, as it absorbs all light.
To see what a true black is, you need a sealed room where NO light can enter, when you are in that room you will not see your hand in front of your face, this is because there is no light able to enter your eyes.
If you think Black is a colour, please Google it, and see what you find.
You too are on about light and not matter.
Noseall,
Please explain how (in a discussion about colour perception), you can consider the nature of the matter without considering the "light"?
The balance is out, THAT is what gets up peoples noses.The sentencing process cannot be driven only by the harm done, appalling as it is. The other side of the equation is the level of culpability, and inherent in the charge of manslaughter is the recognition that the offender did not intend to cause really serious harm. A balance has to be struck between these two major sentencing factors.
Why would I need to discuss the effect light has upon any colour? They are all colours, as is black. I'm not discounting what they are saying about the effects of light. What I am saying is black is a colour.You counter their reasoning, stating that they are discussing light, while you are discussing matter.
So, I ask again,
How can you discuss the colour of matter, without considering the effect of light upon it?
The lesser educated posters are referring to scientific descriptions about beams light whilst attempting to somehow discredit the 'colour' black.Noseall,
Please explain how (in a discussion about colour perception), you can consider the nature of the matter without considering the "light"?
A bit like spouting about the properties of steam when arguing about ice.
Black (amongst many other things) is a colour.
The same Wiki that devotes several pages to the "colour" black?Just once more quoting Wicki.....BLACK IS THE ABSENCE OF ALL COLOUR.
:
The same Wiki that devotes several pages to the "colour" black?Just once more quoting Wicki.....BLACK IS THE ABSENCE OF ALL COLOUR.
:
Worra plonka.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black
My view is that in an unprovoked attack where a person is killed, (note the use of 'killed' not 'dies') the assailant should have to answer in full. Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, 'I didn't mean it' doesn't cut it for me.
And that would be the approach taken by many I suspect.
However, as we know, that is not how The Law works.
Probably best summed up by this section from the appeal judgement
The sentencing process cannot be driven only by the harm done, appalling as it is. The other side of the equation is the level of culpability, and inherent in the charge of manslaughter is the recognition that the offender did not intend to cause really serious harm. A balance has to be struck between these two major sentencing factors.