|
Post by iamjumbo on Nov 29, 2011 16:00:36 GMT -5
how is why someone is murdered relevant? In Europe it does make a difference. What if you were driven to it and were justifiable homicide? Would you still bay for your pound of flesh? Your world is just too black and white, jumbo. justifiable homicide, self defense, defense of your property and others, is NOT murder. murder is the intentional killing of another, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. of course, that malice can be implicit or implied, but, is required for murder. obviously, if you commit any felony in which someone died, you conclusively proved malice by committing the crime to start with
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 29, 2011 16:15:47 GMT -5
In Europe it does make a difference. What if you were driven to it and were justifiable homicide? Would you still bay for your pound of flesh? Your world is just too black and white, jumbo. justifiable homicide, self defense, defense of your property and others, is NOT murder. murder is the intentional killing of another, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. of course, that malice can be implicit or implied, but, is required for murder. obviously, if you commit any felony in which someone died, you conclusively proved malice by committing the crime to start with Dunno Jim, The Joe Horn killing of two burglars comes pretty close to murder to me. They were not burglarizing his home or property, and he didn't know the neighbors that were being burglarized. Not only that, he shot them on the street, and against instructions of the police dispatcher. AK
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 29, 2011 16:20:12 GMT -5
I think what Joe and Jumbo need to realize, are the circumstances with certain crimes. Let me give a couple of examples. 1. A young person is raised by average law abiding parents, and for thrills, acceptance by peers, or some form of negative recognition, he commits a heinous crime. He went to a good school, yet he fell through the cracks in our societiy. 2. A young person is raised in the ghetto. From as far back as he can remember, he has lived in poverty, has been exposed to adults who often commit crimes, has parents that are unemployed, possibly served prison time, and live in poverty. He goes to a school within the ghettos, and are exposed to peers who have the same exposure. He might do drugs because of his frustrations, not being able to work, because of his label, or because he is under-nourished because he comes from a poor family. Both 1 and 2, may commit the very same crimes, but should they be punished equally? Of course, a person who is raised in the ghetto can become a law abiding and upstanding citizen, because some of them do. What about most of them? Of course, someone who was raised with better conditions can commit the same crimes as someone who was raised in the ghetto, but what about most of them? huh uh. first of all, what cracks did the "normal" boy fall through? he had the education, and has no excuse. peer pressure does NOT excuse anything. neither does thrills, or wanting negative recognition. the simple fact is that he chose to commit a crime because he is an inherently worthless individual. realistically, the same goes for the ghetto boy. there is no one growing up in a ghetto now that is poorer than i was, and i never robbed a liquor store or stole a car. there is no one growing up in the ghetto any poorer than the kids in appalachia, but the crime rate in appalachia is a quarter of the crime rate in watts or harlem. the simple FACT is that there is NO societal or environmental cause of crime. the ONLY cause of crime is the worthlessness of the individual who chooses to be a criminal Jim, A person raised in the ghetto is exposed to crimes more, and doesn't have the luxuries of someone who comes from a middle or high income family. Of course, there are exceptions to the rules. Joe pointed out that the majority of people living in the ghetto are law abiding. Still, when you look at percentages, more people from the ghetto will commit felony crimes than people of middle and higher income families.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 17:03:53 GMT -5
more people from the ghetto will commit felony crimes than people of middle and higher income families. Which is penologically and morally irrelevant. Why hold someone to a lower standard of behavior based on race? That is essentially what you're arguing. You're saying ghetto crime victims are less worthy of justice than crime victims in other neighborhoods.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 29, 2011 17:34:48 GMT -5
In Europe it does make a difference. What if you were driven to it and were justifiable homicide? Would you still bay for your pound of flesh? Your world is just too black and white, jumbo. justifiable homicide, self defense, defense of your property and others, is NOT murder. murder is the intentional killing of another, WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. of course, that malice can be implicit or implied, but, is required for murder. obviously, if you commit any felony in which someone died, you conclusively proved malice by committing the crime to start with What if it comes out of torment or provocation? That could be said to be pre-meditated
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 17:50:01 GMT -5
What if it comes out of torment or provocation? That could be said to be pre-meditated Yes, it's premeditated. In the blink of an eye you can decide to kill someone. All but a tiny fraction of people make the right decision, which makes the wrong decision that much more heinous.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 29, 2011 17:57:33 GMT -5
What if it comes out of torment or provocation? That could be said to be pre-meditated Yes, it's premeditated. In the blink of an eye you can decide to kill someone. All but a tiny fraction of people make the right decision, which makes the wrong decision that much more heinous. I take it you are familiar with The Fritzl case. Elisabeth Fritzl (born April 6, 1966), stated to police in the town of Amstetten, Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years in a concealed corridor part of the basement area of the family home, a condominium-style apartment complex built by her father, Josef Fritzl (born April 9, 1935), and that Fritzl had physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped her numerous times during her imprisonment. The incestuous relationship forced upon her by her father resulted in the birth of seven children and one miscarriage. Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 18:00:24 GMT -5
Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? Yes, of course. It's premeditated, malicious murder all the same.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 29, 2011 18:01:21 GMT -5
Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? Yes, of course. It's premeditated, malicious murder all the same. That's nuts, joseph, and you know it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2011 18:13:28 GMT -5
That's nuts, joseph, and you know it. It's not nuts at all. Revenge murder is still murder. By your rationale, I'd have been justified in slaughtering both of my parents. I chose not to. Sympathetic murderers are still murderers.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 29, 2011 20:40:09 GMT -5
?? Justifiable Homicide The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse, justification and an exculpation. It is different from other forms of homicide in that due to certain circumstances the homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents. A homicide can only be justified if there is evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 29, 2011 21:37:35 GMT -5
more people from the ghetto will commit felony crimes than people of middle and higher income families. Which is penologically and morally irrelevant. Why hold someone to a lower standard of behavior based on race? That is essentially what you're arguing. You're saying ghetto crime victims are less worthy of justice than crime victims in other neighborhoods. No Joe, not race. Income. A person with less income is more apt to steal than a person with enough money. I don't know where you got the "race issue" from, but the ghetto does not consist of only one race.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 29, 2011 21:40:25 GMT -5
Yes, it's premeditated. In the blink of an eye you can decide to kill someone. All but a tiny fraction of people make the right decision, which makes the wrong decision that much more heinous. I take it you are familiar with The Fritzl case. Elisabeth Fritzl (born April 6, 1966), stated to police in the town of Amstetten, Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years in a concealed corridor part of the basement area of the family home, a condominium-style apartment complex built by her father, Josef Fritzl (born April 9, 1935), and that Fritzl had physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped her numerous times during her imprisonment. The incestuous relationship forced upon her by her father resulted in the birth of seven children and one miscarriage. Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? Good point Frestslider. While it may not be self defense, I would say it is justifiable homicide.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 29, 2011 21:41:25 GMT -5
Yes, of course. It's premeditated, malicious murder all the same. That's nuts, joseph, and you know it. We agree again!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Nov 30, 2011 1:52:51 GMT -5
the WHY is always relevent whether its murder..theft or what ever the WHY rarely excuses but the reasons are always important the why NEVER excuses, so it's never important. because someone is poor and can't buy new shoes is NEVER an excuse to steal them. same goes for every other crime. the ONLY thing that is relevant is the fact that an inherently worthless individual chose to commit it I HAVE ALREADY SAID THE why is not an EXCUSE the WHY however is the reason.. and the reason is important.. which is why there are level of murder allowable in a court of law via mitigating circumstance fret mentioned the fritzel case..if the daughter had murdered the father she would have stopped the greater crime of inprisonment and rape from continuing or if some one killed a pedophile in the act of taking/abducting a child... they would have stopped a crime....the WHY is all important when doling out punishment and retribution...the law reconises this
|
|