I can see both sides of the argument in this, and won't go any further with the arguments. But today I've been listening to information from the court case about the parents who killed their own child. I have always been, and continue to be, against the death penalty, but this case pushes me to the edge of thinking that a death sentence would be appropriate. How could anyone even consider ending a life that they had created.

If Football had any morals whatsoever the FA should tear up his registration and the PFA simply say to it's members do not play in the same team as him. People like McCormick make football look even sicker than it is. The whole industry has no shame.

How is that intent you fool? If you come home drunk, decide put the chip pan on and accidentally burn the house down does that constitute intent?

If it was intent then it is murder.

If he intended to kill them and successfully argued a partial defence of intoxication then it becomes manslaughter.

It is death by dangerous driving if he does as he did.

Plus do you think he wanted the photos taken. He will have been trailed by a photographer and as for the family. Reckon they got paid for their story?

I'm not even going to reply to that.
You're either on the wind up or just generally stupid.
I can't make my mind up yet.

Can someone tell me which jobs are allowed and which arent once you have commited a crime. I cant find the list anywhere.

Come on, why is that stupid or is it just correct so you struggling for a reply?

One's where you ain't gunna be in the public domain on a national level earning a very good wage

Being a footballer is also being a role model for kids.
I don't see McCormick somehow fitting that description.

Read back to all my previous posts, i've justified to myself and hopefully to others why I think he shouldn't be allowed into football. Nothing much I need to add.

Mr LT how do you know that he isnt going to support the family of the kids he killed, he may just do that like emmanuel adebayor does with the keeper who got shot on the Togo bus.

If he's going to support them he should do it away from the publicity of a football field.
If it was my kids I'd feel sick to the stomach every time I saw or heard his name being mentioned.
By the sounds of it that's exactly how the kids parents feel.
Foook all this bollox about education and giving something back, he should have kept his head down and kept away from football in this country.
If he still wants to keep playing he should foook off abroad and stay there.

What if he goes to play in Spain and then some of the kids family want to go there to live. Does that mean he would then have to stop playing football there?

You talking out your arse

Remember yesterday when I wondered whether you were on the wind up or just generally stupid?
The latter has definitely won me over.

my 2 year old could come up with a better response. you act like a child.

All your arguments fail to stand up. what do you propose the lad does when he gets out?

Perhaps re-train go down a different career path, something alot less low key

Just shoot the tw@

Another suitable option

I can see both sides but I will reserve judgement until I see how he acts and conducts himself on and off the field.

Footballers are human, they make mistakes. I bet there are people who post on here that have done things they shouldn't when they'd had a few drinks although few will probably admit it. I don't have an issue with him playing football if a club is prepared to pay him but I hope he has learned his lesson and acts with dignity....

I agree with this. I think people get hung up on how Lee Hughes acts. I just hope if this lad gets a second chance he acts totally different to that 'lovely lovely person'

If it was your own kids i'm sure you wouldn't be so forgiving

Rape is a different kettle of fish to two young kids losing their life though isn't it.
I'm still not comfortable with the Evans case which is why I've voiced my views on it.
However, the main issue which I'm furious about is his willingness to put himself back in the public eye, you can see my point on that one!

It certainly isn't.
I'm not going to get into another discussion regarding the Evans case, I've made my point on this but can there be anything worse happen to someone than lose the only 2 kids in your life, and those kids still in childhood.
I'd have no sympathy at all if the same thing happened to him!

I did notice that slight inconsistency as well. But that's another matter.

I'm in the middle of marking so I'll keep my comments as brief as possible; for those of you who know anything about this, you will recognise the gaps! Speaking of which, this discussion reminds me of some of the worst exam papers I see.

While the rights/interests of victims and their families are important, they cannot drive the response of the criminal justice system for a number of reasons. I'll mention 2. First is consistency; if a victim (or family) was particularly forgiving and understanding, does that mean that any sentence should be reduced? LT seems to think that the interests of Vs should drive up sentences. There are many instances of forgiving victims who 'understand' (Mr Waldo Pepper knows what I mean here! ) 'their' offender. Should these offenders thereby benefit? Second, the criminal justice system is there to act in a wider public interest, and this may sometimes go against the wishes/interests of the victim. If the public interest was not important, then we could say that we could abolish the concept of crime and leave redress to the law of tort (with effective legal aid to make sure that everyone could take proceedings if wronged). A radical proposal, to say the least!

Those who kill while driving rarely do so with 'intent'; if they did, a prosecutor could charge murder and not rely on the causing death by driving offences (there are a few, most of which were added in the last decade). Assessing culpability in criminal cases is a difficult matter, but (and I’m simplifying here greatly) we usually do so through a combination of assessing the harm caused AND blame. The level of harm is important but we need to factor in how we assess blame, both legally and morally. So, the criminal law differentiates between different degrees of blame, usually (but not always, as here) based on what is called ‘cognitive’ culpability. So, to intend something is more blameworthy than being reckless. These terms have particular definitions; to summarise, intent means purpose or desire while reckless means to foresee the harmful consequences of your actions. To not foresee the consequences is to be negligent, and that is not usually a sufficient basis for liability. In short, the criminal law historically only attached blame to the conscious choices we make; the outcome has to be within our contemplation when we act before we can be blamed. So, to be criminally liable we must either want the outcome to occur (intent) or foresee it as possible and carry on regardless (recklessness). However, the law has expanded to deal with situations where we act without thinking and cause harm; the causing death by driving offences being a good example. The important point here is that offences are on a scale; murder, for instance, is a crime of intention (to kill or cause GBH) and as we see intent as more reprehensible, it has a higher max than manslaughter.

The causing death by driving offences are known as aggravated endangerment offences. As driving is a particularly risky activity (if done badly) there are a number of endangerment offences. To drive dangerously, without due care and attention or when intoxicated is to drive in a manner that creates a risk of harm. For the offence to occur, harm does not need to occur. It is the creation of the risk that the law seeks to curtail. This leads to the question (as asked by Mr Tax here), is it more blameworthy if the risk materialises or is this just bad luck? This is reflected in the law to some extent; there is, for example, no offence of causing injury if driving dangerously. There is only the offence of dangerous driving, and the causing of injury is an aggravating feature in this offence. So, why do we have the causing death by driving offences? Two reasons; they are a historical creation because juries did not convict of manslaughter in driving cases, hence the creation of the offence of causing death by dangerous/reckless driving (out of interest, if the driving is particularly bad, a manslaughter conviction remains a possibility). Second, the fact of death causes a particular alarm/concern that the law has responded to. Back to the issue of bad luck; some criminal law theorists state that this is not ‘pure’ bad luck; by choosing to drive dangerously (or intoxicated) you have made your own luck. This argument has merits, but does it completely change one’s position in relation to the eventual outcome? To drive while intoxicating is obviously a problematic choice, but we can differentiate it from hitting someone with a hammer (as mentioned above) intentionally. To use a hammer is a qualitatively different act that is surely more blameworthy and deserves a more strong response from the law.

In short, I think it’s simplistic to say that the law has got it wrong here. A response from the law is appropriate, but to compare this act to an intentional killing somewhat misses the point. It’s not.

Brief?

Nice short sweet summary from Fat man

There are able 3 relevant tutorial topics on this thread. I could have done 5000 words easily. In fact, this could be the start of my next article.

Evans didn't kill 2 kids did he, silly man!

Evans got 5 years, I don't see many people complaining about that.
The other guy got pissed up, drove a foooking tank at nearly 100 miles a hour, ploughed into a family, killed 2 young kids, left the father in a wheelchair and wants to go back playing football.
You couldn't make it up.
Let's not compare the two, Evans is done with, this guy wants to play football again.
Do you think it's ok ?
As you say, "Priceless"

That'll do me

Hopefully put a gun to his head.