2006-11-23 02:39:38 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Revenge is premeditated and therefore wrong. A justifiable murder, say in the defence against extreme violence towards oneself or one's family should be looked on leniently.
2006-11-23 02:42:19 · answer #1 · answered by Kezzi T 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No Way! No one has any right to take the life of another - especially in a fit of rage. What if you killed someone out of revenge because the stole you CD player?!?! If something like this were legalised it would be the thin edge of a wedge to legalising all sorts of killings.
2006-11-23 10:48:08 · answer #2 · answered by MrsC 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hmmm, revenge. If you legalize revenge then you would probably need to legalize murder for hire for those who cant actually do the murder but still want revenge. So if you want to legalize all killings then yes go ahead, but don't expect the world to be a better place because of it.
2006-11-23 11:21:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No! Think about it; we got rid of the death penalty for a reason. Murder for revenge should not be legalised, but mitigating circumstances should be taken into account when sentencing the murderer.
2006-11-23 10:43:02 · answer #4 · answered by Tracey S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Depends what the person you want to murder ( take revenge on ) done in the first place. If it was kill / rape / physically abuse someone i think yes, they derserve it but if it was legalised wouldnt everyone be just killing for the sake of it??
2006-11-23 10:49:14 · answer #5 · answered by CrayzeeKat 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no Ever hear of the Ten Commandments? It says Thoushalt not murder. What is revenge? It can be He shot my sister so I am revenging her or something dumb like he pushed me in the hall. NO NO NO NO
2006-11-23 11:04:50 · answer #6 · answered by devora k 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is probably an over-reaction, otherwise the person seeking revenge wouldn't be alive to take revenge. Let me leave you with one, what is the difference between a person who tries to murder, but fails, and one who tries and succeeds? Shouldn't the one who tries and fails get a longer prison sentence, because morally, he is just as culpable in terms of intent, and, added to that, he is incompetent because he failed.
2006-11-24 12:42:26 · answer #7 · answered by Veritas 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say no.
But! If some thug, say raped my wife and murdered her, then murdered my child, I think the court should accept that I should walk away after beating the bastard to death. Even if the event took place months after his crime.
This would still be pre-meditated, so wouldn't fall into the category of Manslaughter!
Would anyone on a jury convict on those grounds?
2006-11-23 10:57:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
To a small extent, it already is, in cases where there has been really extreme provocation, and the killing is immediately afterwards and in the heat of the moment, not later, as considered retaliation.
Of course, in parts of the world such as the Middle East, retaliatory killing carried out by governments and paramilitaries seems to be the accepted norm.
2006-11-23 11:42:39 · answer #9 · answered by andrew f 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder should not be "legalised" under any circumstances, however varying degrees of scentancing should be applied depending on the circumstances (provokation, mentally unbalanced and so on)
2006-11-23 11:36:38 · answer #10 · answered by Bill T 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋