Now, you may also take him to court for drug abuse, but surely the loss of the thought process (on both: she probably wouldn't have died but for the drugs that weakened her) means something with regard to the intention of killing, and somewhat mitigates the gravity of the crime. There are cases where people are hallucinating so much that they kill someone without any realisation of the fact. They should be treated (and punished if you will) for their drug addiction, but surely don't deserve as much jail as a murderer who was in full possession of his mind, in full command of his actions, at the time.
Anyway, the fact remains that in France it is a mitigating circumstance, which is relevant to the fact that he served more than he would have, had he been tried in France. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
But he chose to get wasted and damage his sensibilities enough to make him a danger to those around him. This is the drunk driving analogy. I understand that public sentiment in France is different from the UK where we have become sick of drunks killing friends and family and have no patience for it anymore.
So, yes he was out of it. But he chose that condition over sobriety and thus remains responsible for the outcome. Murder.
that's a british view and I was asked for my opinion. I accept that france has a different one. keep to the Fen Causeway
"I understand that public sentiment in France is different from the UK where we have become sick of drunks killing friends and family and have no patience for it anymore."
It's not about public sentiment, it's about the use of reason. Just because people have lost patience with something does not mean that the rules of logic and reason change. Otherwise, that's how you get mobs. To claim that it is murder as opposed to manslaughter is laughable. He hit her without the intention of killing, and indeed would not even have injured her if she had not been stoned herself. Abd even that he did not set out to do (unlike driving when you are drunk). He failed to contain his violence. That's all he did and it is bad enough, especially given the consequences. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
To the UK way of thinking if you volunteer to get out of your head and then commit a crime, your choice to become dangerous is not a mitigating factor but an additional fault.
you are arguing from another viewpoint. That's your privilege. It doesn't make either of us right or wrong, in this we are simply prisoners of our respective cultural backgrounds.
I return to the point I made earlier : I was asked my view and I stated it. Arguing with me isn't going to convince me. I think i have made it clear that I am not susceptible to persuasion on this point, any more than you are to mine. It's different. I now know I can get wasted and create mayhem in france with impunity, but don't you do it in the UK, you may find yourself disappointed by the lack of judicial sympathy. keep to the Fen Causeway
It CANNOT be an additional fault on the charge of murder, since it invalidates the definition of murder.
This has nothing to do with cultural background, except if we consider that the statement "Black is White, War is Peace" is simply a cultural perspective. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
