Talk:Derived Offence
From Wikivinaya
(distinctions?) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I have not yet come up with an example where having a factor missing completely will generate an offence.[[User:BKh|BKh]] 12:25, 23 July 2006 (EDT) | I have not yet come up with an example where having a factor missing completely will generate an offence.[[User:BKh|BKh]] 12:25, 23 July 2006 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Yes, I do think these are the same (the steps concerning Pr 2 and Sd 5). | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I think some of the more detailed info we will be able to fill in over time, after working a bit more with the rules, which might trigger our memory and lead us back to the factors of offence... Greetings, [[User_Talk:Admin|DJti]] 19:18, 23 July 2006 (EDT) | ||
Current revision as of 23:18, 23 July 2006
Dear DJti, I think it is good to split the pages. The distinctions between the three items I listed as ways of creating a derived offence are somewhat blurry to me. (I was going to post some discussion about that after lunch) I am afraid I create a distinction where one may not exist. Right now you head the paragraph about the subfactors of Sang 5 as "examples concerning actions leading to the offence." In the example you give, the action is brokend down into specific parts. The aspects involved in hooking two people up. Is this different from the example I give of taking steps towards stealing an object?
I have not yet come up with an example where having a factor missing completely will generate an offence.BKh 12:25, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
- Yes, I do think these are the same (the steps concerning Pr 2 and Sd 5).
- I think some of the more detailed info we will be able to fill in over time, after working a bit more with the rules, which might trigger our memory and lead us back to the factors of offence... Greetings, DJti 19:18, 23 July 2006 (EDT)
