This is my amateur effort to keep track of the men, women and children murdered in the UK during the 12 months from May 17th 2007. I will update it regularly until it is about to 'drop off' the bottom of the page when I will re-post it. For my purposes, adults are 17 yrs or more, children are 16 yrs or less:
updated 13th June:
37 men (1 policeman): 9 women: 5 children:
(Notes: Already one thing is becoming clear, the murder weapon of choice is the knife. Beware of becoming engaged in any altercation, particularly with youths, the chances are they will be 'tooled up'.)
In response to a question from a commenter, my source is the BBC news site. I exclude all deaths due to what would normally be called an accident even if the eventual charge might be manslaughter. I only report those deaths in which the police are looking for perpetrators, that is, the death arose directly because of deliberate actions by third parties. Again, some might end up being charged with manslaughter but, as I once heard an old-style copper say, "Never mind the legal jargon, just count the bodies!"
Additional: For those seeking even more clarification of what I mean by 'murder' please read my reply to the first comment here.
David, you've amply demonstrated at Not Saussure that you don't understand the law relating to unlawful killing, so why should we pay any attention to your game of murder bingo?
Let's say that you're driving down the road when your attention is momentarily diverted and you accidentally plough through a bus queue, killing seven people. Is that murder?
Or let's imagine that you're out for dinner with Mrs. Duff and you get into an altercation with a local lout - he shoves you, you hit him, he hits his head on the pavement and dies*. Is that murder?
Or the square-go - two guys get in an argument over nothing, have a stand-up fist fight and one suffers a brain heamorrhage and dies. Is that murder?
What is the standard for murder here?
Because if it's based on your limited understanding of court reporting as channeled through the BBC, this is an utterly pointless exercise.
I'd probably learn more listening to a duck's opinions about nuclear proliferation.
*I mention this specifically because I saw such a case come to court - the accused was found guilty and duly sentenced.
Posted by: Flying Rodent | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 04:04
Ah! the numbers getting to you, are they, 'Ratty'? 10 men, 5 women and a child simply snuffed out and all in a couple of weeks. 'Stick around, kid, you ain't seen nothin' yet'!
For the benefit of others who read this regularly, and despite the fact that I thought I had made my definition clear enough, I will take your points head on:
"Let's say that you're driving down the road when your attention is momentarily diverted and you accidentally plough through a bus queue, killing seven people. Is that murder?" No, it's an accident unless you are speeding recklessly or you are drunk or on drugs.
"Or let's imagine that you're out for dinner with Mrs. Duff and you get into an altercation with a local lout - he shoves you, you hit him, he hits his head on the pavement and dies*. Is that murder?" No because I am defending myself against an assault - he shoved me.
"two guys get in an argument over nothing, have a stand-up fist fight and one suffers a brain heamorrhage and dies. Is that murder?" Depends who throws the first punch. One man is defending himself against the criminal act of another - see above.
Liberals of a lawyerly bent like to dream up all these fringe cases and fondly imagine themselves to be latter-day Henry Fondas triumphantly smashing the DA's case. In the meantime truly innocent people are slaughtered because liberals will not allow the return of the one thing guaranteed to reduce the murder rate - hanging.
Most of my statistics relate to 'good', old-fashioned stabbings and shootings. I am holding back on a current case in which a little girl was killed and her mother injured by a hit and run driver. It is almost certainly murder because there are reports of the car hitting two other vehicles on its way to the place where the killing occurred - but I await confirmation before adding it to my list.
Another case which I did add concerned a man who had an altercation with some young, noisy and misbehaving yobs outside his home and was punched and killed by one of them. It is *possible* that he might have been grappling with one of them but in my view its murder because the yobs were the instigators of it by their original criminal behaviour.
Finally, let me repeat for the benefit of 'Ratty' whose eyes, amongst other organs he possesses, are dim what I wrote in the post:
"Again, some might end up being charged with manslaughter but, as I once heard an old-style copper say, "Never mind the legal jargon, just count the bodies!" And that's what I am doing."
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 09:55
That's rather my point David - I was saying that your arbitrary opinion of press coverage of court cases is a poor barometer for such matters.
There's a reason why the law is the way it is - it's reached its current position after hundreds of years of evolution. That's why I take a dim view of politicians tinkering with the law every time the tabloids get hysterical.
I'd call such behaviour Screwing about with things you don't understand, and any electrician can tell you why that's a bad idea.
Posted by: Flying Rodent | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 11:57
'Ratty', I like you; not least because of your endearing habit of demonstrating the illogicality of your average, soppy liberal!
Consider your own words above, "There's a reason why the law is the way it is - it's reached its current position after hundreds of years of evolution." That roughly translates as 'the law is constantly changing under the pressure of outside events'.
Then consider your next words, "That's why I take a dim view of politicians tinkering with the law every time the tabloids get hysterical", and that translates roughly as 'I no longer wish to see the law change under the pressure of events', with the unspoken inference that the only exception would be if the pressure came from "The Guardian"!
"Could do better", 'Ratty', and please get your Mum to change a fuse next time one blows!
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 13:32
Another straw man soundly bayonetted there, David. Any chance you could read what I write, consider it and then respond?
demonstrating the illogicality of your average, soppy liberal!
Who's the liberal here? I'm arguing that we should think carefully before messing with established principles, since knee-jerk legislation almost always results in catastrophic pile-ups in courts.
Your political compass is wildly out of kilter if you think that's a liberal position - it's the very definition of small-c conservatism.
The law is a complex system of checks and balances designed to provide the best possible outcome in the maximum number of cases, and ill-considered legislation usually causes all manner of unforeseen effects - most commonly, someone who should be in prison walking free.
That's why we have institutions like the Law Commission to research such issues, rather than delegating decisions to a reactionary know-nothing like yourself.
I don't sling such accusations lightly, but anyone who can look at hundreds of years of practice and precedent then write it off as 'legal jargon' is not an informed commentator but an ignoramus.
Posted by: Flying Rodent | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 15:07
"I'm arguing that we should think carefully before messing with established principles, since knee-jerk legislation almost always results in catastrophic pile-ups in courts."
Oh, you mean like the great liberal weep-in during the '50s that led to the repeal of the death penalty, which in turn, failed to cause a 'pile up in the courts' but did lead to a massacre of the innocent over the next 50 years.
And, oh dear what a pity never mind, but the *actual* outcome of the "complex system of checks and balances designed to provide the best possible outcome in the maximum number of cases" was hundreds more murdered men, women and children, but hey, omelettes and eggs and all that sort of thing. Unless, of course, by "best possible outcome in the maximum number of cases" you mean the employment of ever more barristers in ever more cases!
Finally, I might well be a "know-nothing" but what has "re-actionary" got to do with it? The one is not irreconcilably linked to the other, outside the pages of 'The Guardian', that is.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 15:27
The one is not irreconcilably linked to the other
Quite right, it's real acheivement to have successfully combined the two. Well done.
...lead to a massacre of the innocent over the next 50 years...
Yet again it's Duff's staple - the insistance that today's increased crime rate is the result of the lack of capital punishment, without presenting any evidence to prove the case.
If it was based on anything more than a comparison of the two figures leading to an 'obvious' conclusion, I might argue the toss with you.
Sadly, I've never seen you rise above the following mode of argument - I felt fine on Sunday morning, and then I petted a dog. By Sunday evening I had developed a nasty cold, from which I conclude that dogs cause colds.
All of which is a wonderful distraction from the fact that you've failed to disprove my assertion that you don't understand the law, have no interest in understanding it and would far rather stomp your foot and scream.
Unless, of course, by "best possible outcome in the maximum number of cases" you mean the employment of ever more barristers in ever more cases!
By which you mean, the legal system exists solely to remunerate lawyers, just like medicine exists to profit only doctors and construction is merely pork to fill the pockets of architects.
Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a malevolent conspiracy.
I would be most grateful if you would recognise that people considerably cleverer than either of us designed our legal system to the best of their abilities and that the safeguards in the system are there in the interests of justice.
Posted by: Flying Rodent | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 18:47
Well, let me take your points in reverse order.
"people considerably cleverer than either of us designed our legal system to the best of their abilities"
Wrong! No one "designed it". English Common Law developed slowly by (dare I say it) 'the invisible hand' of untold numbers of judges who set precedents. It is only in the relatively recent history of statute law, invented for its own purposes by parliament (you know, all that "knee-jerk legislation" you quite rightly complained of) that laws were produced to aid in the construction of certain social modes thought to be desirable but now recognised as disastes.
Lawyers would have you believe that they always act in the most selfless manner and always in pursuit of abstract justice. You may choose to believe them, I do not. Nor, I venture to add, does anyone else outside the asylum!
As to my opinion that the death penalty reduces the murder rate, perhaps you would explain to me why the rate has risen in the UK since the abolition of the death penalty and fallen in the USA since they re-introduced it into many of the states. Also, would you explain to me why, if punishment does not deter, do we bother with any punishement at all?
I am not ashamed of the thought process you gave as an example because that, in fact, is the way that all humans reason (perhaps not lawyers but that begs the question ...!) Humans observe phenomena and offer up hypotheses to explain them which others then attempt to falsify (Karl Popper, passim).
I bow to your superior wit in your opening jibe. Well done.
Posted by: David Duff | Saturday, 02 June 2007 at 20:03
Wrong! No one "designed it".
Nit-picking - you know very well what I meant.
Humans observe phenomena and offer up hypotheses to explain them which others then attempt to falsify.
This is true, although it's traditional to provide evidence, analyse it and draw conclusions, as opposed to insisting that 1+1=4,384 without showing your work.
...if punishment does not deter, do we bother with any punishement at all?
You're giving criminals more credit than they're due here - drawing on my own experience in the justice system, almost all murders are committed in hot blood, often under the influence of drugs and drink.
Murderers absolutely never stop to consider consequences - you'd be staggered how many times I've read about guys who stabbed their wives then tell the cops "But I didn't mean to kill her!".
Send me an email at flyingrodent@(nospam)hotmail.co.uk and I'll give you a little insight into how the average murder happens.
As for the decrease in the murder rate in the US, you might like to consider whether any combination of the following might have contributed...
Economics, draconian sanctions on minor crime, the world's highest incarceration rate (which Britain could not possibly match), the availability of drugs, employment rates, access to firearms, gang culture or organised crime.
All or none of these might have an impact - the point is that complex problems seldom have easy answers, much as we might wish that were the case.
Posted by: Flying Rodent | Sunday, 03 June 2007 at 13:38
"Nit-picking".
Not at all, it's a crucial difference. Even so I grant that our current crop of soppy judges would probably have banned the death penalty of their own volition - another reason, perhaps, to have elected judges!
"insisting that 1+1=4,384 "
Alas, there is much in human affairs that does not allow 'proof' in the scientific sense of the word. Thus, the decisions taken in the '50s over the death penalty and in the '60s over abortion, were matters of judgement. Today you and I look at the same results and see a different pictures. It was ever thus!
I take your point concerning the fact that difficult problems are not always solved by apparently simple solutions - although sometimes they are! For example, death onthe roads has been reduced by the 'simple' expedient of increasing the penalties and policing it hard. It hasn't stopped it,any more than hanging will stop murder, but it reduces it at the margin. Please consider this, a 10% reduction in the murder rate would mean somewhere around 80 to 90 innocent human beings alive, not dead, *every year*. I know how abhorrent the death penalty is to contemplate because I was in favour of its abolition, myself, years ago, but after a lifetime of observing the results I realise how wrong I was and how much needless suffering has occurred.
I will e-mail you because I am interested in the details but rest assured, nothing you tell me will be reprinted here or anywhere.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 03 June 2007 at 15:05