[user104658]

In response to your question in the other thread; action is worse than inaction. So Jane gets the 25 years for actively causing the death while Debbie gets 10 for doing nothing. In terms of safety, it's FAR more likely that someone who has already actively killed someone, deliberately, will kill again. They are both equally GUILTY in the deaths, but Jane is more DANGEROUS than Debbie.

[ChristmasNeeve]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

In response to your question in the other thread; action is worse than inaction. So Jane gets the 25 years for actively causing the death while Debbie gets 10 for doing nothing. In terms of safety, it's FAR more likely that someone who has already actively killed someone, deliberately, will kill again. They are both equally GUILTY in the deaths, but Jane is more DANGEROUS than Debbie.

So i was right all along basically. Jane is worse

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

So i was right all along basically. Jane is worse

Morally I still say they're both the same. Debbie is still just as willing to cause a loss of life - she just doesn't have the stones to actually go through with it... Which makes Jane more of a risk to others in most normal settings.