2006-07-03 06:27:19 · 22 answers · asked by Mandy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No that is why we have different degrees of murder.
2006-07-03 06:30:44 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are degrees of guilt as any textbook will show you and there are degrees of responsibility too. If I have a broken glass bottle and you have a 44 magnum...I am the aggressor but your response in killing me is excessive. Each case must be judged on the merits of the actions. Obviously a 12 year old would be intimidated by a six foot, 350 pound man with a tablespoon and fear for life...is it justifiable.? Yes. But we should not confuse the need for violence as an answer when logic dictates otherwise. A simple purse-snatching hardly justifies homicide but that is what the lady could claim as she was paralysed with fear and worried for her very life and how could it be proved different. Despite the fact that the purse-snatcher was 14 years old and only 1/4 th weight of the murderer.
This attitude of justifiable murder reverts us back to the wild west.
2006-07-03 13:49:29 · answer #2 · answered by Frank 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends. Where were they when the person was killed? If you are at home and an intruder breaks in and tries to hurt you and in self defense you attack back and kill the intruder, you won't be punished. You had the right to defend yourself by any means possible. It was your house and they had no right to intrude. But if for example, you're at your brother's house and he comes home a little later than you thought he was going to, and you kill him as he walks in the front door, yes you are going to be punished. Or if you kill someone that attacked you when you were on their property. They were probably just defending themselves. Yes you will be punished.
2006-07-03 13:43:14 · answer #3 · answered by ChaoticChicaLovesJT 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, it isn't even called murder if it's in self-defense. I think whether or not punishment is deserved depends on whether it could have been possible for the person to defend themselves without actually killing the person attacking them.
2006-07-03 13:30:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Running into a house and killing all the occupants including women and children is not defending yourself!
2006-07-03 13:32:04 · answer #5 · answered by theforce51 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the situation
2006-07-03 13:29:53 · answer #6 · answered by Backwoods Barbie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's the laws of the country that you reside in that would determine the fate of the murderer.Some bank robber might say that it was self defense.The judge and jury would say otherwise.
2006-07-03 13:45:19 · answer #7 · answered by Balthor 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wouldn't be murder if it was self defense, more and more people are trying to beat charges saying it was self defense when it really wasn't. might be Aggravated Man slaughter if anything.
2006-07-03 13:30:35 · answer #8 · answered by Dawn R 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if they are defending thierself, it is called justifiable homocide, not murder. And depending on the exact happenings, there is no charge done.
2006-07-03 17:33:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's up to a jury of his peers to decide. Ain't America great?
2006-07-03 13:29:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋