There has to be an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, sounds pretty much like premeditation to me

If we are brawling in the street and as we are rolling around on the floor I see a broken bottle, pick it up and shove it in your gut. You die, and the prosecution prove I intended to cause you GBH I have murdered you.

I haven't planned in advance to kill you or cause you GBH, it was a split second decision as I saw the bottle on the floor.

Codead - I wouldn't really agree with that. You can do something on the spur of the moment that isn't pre-planned.
For instance you go home, find someone in bed with the wife and in a rage stab him with a pair of scissors on the bed-side table. I'd say that wasn't premeditated, whereas the 7/7 bombings, say, would be because they were planned and committed in the cold light of day.

By picking up the scissors and attacking him with them, you obviously intended to cause him harm, the fact that scissors can cause grievous harm drops you in to that category. There is no time limit on premeditation, you don't have to sit brooding or planning it for days or even hours.

[url=http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#murderCPS link[/url

Then you could apply the defence of defending yourself or momentarily insanity. If it could be proven that you picked up the bottle with the intention of causing me grievous harm, you have murdered me, simple as.

"Send him down"

You do know that Brady comitted his crimes while we had capital punishment, it didn't stop him.

For me there are differing degrees:
1. Those who go out with the intention of killing someone e.g. drugs lords, Rose West
2. Those who ensure if things don't go according to plan they have a back up
3. Self defence that goes to far
4. Man finds wife in bed with best mate

The emotional the drive to do the deed is different and a life sentence for 1 & 2 seems odd given the different degrees of drive.

Thankfully the drafting and implimentation of the law is not up to you

The sentence handed out in a murder case is individual and based on the circumstances of the case. There are already degrees of murder to that extent. In all murder cases, however, the standard of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. And yet there are still miscarriages of justice. If those (innocent) people have been shown 'beyond reasonable doubt' to be guilty of murder, how do you propose we avoid hanging innocent people if your plan for the reintroduction of the death penalty is successful?

And that's without considering:

1) the trustworthiness of the police. I can entirely understand why police would, in horrific cases, be so determined to bring a killer to book that they'd bend the rules if they thought that they had the right person and could only get them that way, but we know precisely where that leads. And that's without going down the route of discussing a case such as that of Daniel Morgan;

2) DNA evidence is not 100% effective'

3) the ethical question of why, if the taking of life is such a serious crime, it becomes acceptable for the state to do exactly that.

If anyone missed the original screening on Question Time of Priti ("it really is"icon_wink.gif Patel debating the death penalty with Ian Hislop, then it's well worth searching the two names on youtube

"Ian Hislop explains Capital Punishment to an Idiot."

A pretty fair and succinct summation.

The major problem is she is a member of our legislature, not only that, she's also marked as a rising star among Camoron's coterie

I would not mind seeing more of her she is quite priti

God made him think it.

Are you really so shallow?

Interestingly there have been a few occasions over here of late, where a person has punched someone in a fight, who has fallen, smashed their head on the pavement and died.

Also, If someone went out to just give someone a little "slap" as a warning without any intention other than to fire off a warning shot and they cracked their head and died. What happens then Petrocelli?

..

Just because i dont like Tories does not mean i would not sleep with them.

So the answer to your question is YES.

Manslaughter most likely.

Yep! and proud of it.

As I grew up she took my free school milk off me, started the erosion of free university education, introduced the poll tax, put many of my friends fathers on the dole, condemned many of my contemporaries to a life on benefits, shut the pits, battered the unions, oversaw the demise of manufacturing in this country, sold off all the essential services, deregulated the city letting a bunch of spivs take over... I could go on , but the list is too long! To top it all, her clinging on to life has lost me a fortune in death sweeps!

As for my mother, she didn't destroy the lives and hopes of millions of people!

Are you suggesting if Ian Brady, Myra Hindley, Rose West or Peter Sutcliffe had been executed there was the slightest chance of a miscarriage of justice? These are the types of individuals I am suggesting are suitable for execution.

On the state taking lives - we think it is OK to go and murder innocent people in places like Afghanistan but it not OK to carry out controlled virtually painless death on those convicted of the most serious of crimes?

So where is the common denominator between those four other than the fact that they were convicted of murder, what is the specific part of their crime that make it suitable for the death penalty and other murders not ?

so you hate the tories because they stopped free school milk and shut some pits, yet you vote labour even though they stopped free school milk and shut down more pits. interesting. oh, and that whole 'demise of manufacturing' nonsense is just that.

Remind us again, how old were you during Thatchers reign?