That's a bit of a leap runner. For a start, cross-dressing does not have anything to do with murder and how relevant is cross-dressing except that people might find it 'weird' so there must be something wrong with a person who cross-dresses in the first place. That is the assumption you are implying. Lots of guys dress up these days because it's more socially acceptable than it once was to do so. Some males like to wear make-up, they do more things like pluck their eye-brows, wear fake-tan, 'pink' shirts, lip-gloss, wax all parts of their bodies (except the hair on their head), wear perfume for 'men', wear jewellery - so don't assume you've got the market on relativism runner. If a male has a desire to cross-dress then this is his choice and it does not connect him in any way to being a murderer, and anyway, lots of men like to dress-up and feel beautiful and this is perfectly fine and this is their choice if they wish. So you said in the same context, cross-dresser and murderer? How did this become murder judge runner? The young man 'accidentally' killed his girlfriend and so I assume this was someone he loved. How this can be compared to terminating a pregnancy is the biggest leap of all and is an entirely separate issue involving another set issues around moral rights, personal beliefs, and issues about freedom of choice.

dotto

Secular humanism preaches moral relativism. This means that lying is no longer lying, perversion is no longer perversion, killing the innocent is no longer murder. The point I was making was that the judges are always going to come up with inconsistent and weak rulings with this philosophy. Victims of crime are always going to be the losers because modern psychology makes the criminal the victim.

If people are so callous that they can't see killing the unborn is murder then we have no hope of justice with a cross dresser killing a friend albeit accidentally. The cross dresser ruling is no better than many other soft rulings being handed out by the courts.

Rehctub finishes his post by stating

'Boy, is it little wonder society is crumbling.' Put it down to the world view and philosophies many in high places including judges have adopted.

Does anybody here have the full transcript of what was "actually said" in the court judgment? I'm NOT talking about what was said in a newspaper/tabloid report of the case, but the actual court judgment, in total.

Until everyone here knows exactly what the court decision entailed, in full, then nobody here is qualified to pass judgment.

Yes, very good point TZ52HX

Ok, so I was wrong, he actually had 'two' excuses as to why he should not go to gaol.

But, had he been a normal person, without 'hang ups' and without a disorder, then chances are, he would be doing time for manslaughter. Right! Now I get it. Not!.

Either way, in my opinion, it's a joke and one that the parents and family of the victim have to live with for the rest of thier lives.

Meanwhile, there may well be people in gaols searching high and low for either a disorder or a hang up for which they may be able to use as an excuse.

rehctub,

This tragedy resulted from an act of stupidity - there was no criminal intent.
Whether or not a custodial sentence would serve to deter young men (and women) from speeding and taking risks is open to question.
The issue here is the type of disorder and the effect it would have in a cloistered environment where predatory behaviour is likely to occur. The judge's decision rested on the fact that the option of incarcerating this person was likely to result in an appropriate custodial sentence morphing into an excessive one.