English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

example would be if someone murdered the person who killed their child.

2007-06-11 05:10:31 · 11 answers · asked by sdgnjksjfksn 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

11 answers

The answer is--not really. Juries, during instructions, are instructed that they are to find guilt or innocence without regard to the punishment being sought. This means that the people most persuaded by an emotional justification are not allowed to consider that justification.*

The person responsible for sentencing is the judge--a person usually trained to leave emotion out of their job. Most judges are constrained by "sentencing guidelines" which are usually followed (even though a Supreme Court ruling a couple years back made them voluntary and not mandatory on sentencing judges). These guidelines are usually comprehensive and don't account for things like "motive."

Lastly, I have to say that I'm not all that persuaded myself by having a "reasonable motive" for murder. Who's to decide what is "reasonable?" One man's reasonable is another man's unreasonable. Furthermore, one of the reasons we have courts and a justice system is so that people won't use vigilante justice to impose their will on the masses. Taking your example, when someone's child is murdered, society as a whole has been injured, not just the parent. Someone who would have worked and learned and contributed to the betterment of society was taken away. If the parent kills the person who did it (keeping in mind they may be mistaken), they deprive society as a whole of the justice to which it is also entitled.

Don't do it.

*There are some examples: battered woman's syndrome as a recognized defense, self-defense, insanity. These are all examples of "reasonable motive" that may result in a not-guilty finding. Further, if the story is compelling enough, one might be able to achieve what is called "jury nullification" which means the jury finds the defendant not guilty even though he broke the law.

2007-06-11 05:21:25 · answer #1 · answered by tara k 3 · 1 0

Under the law the punishment should always fit the crime. However, since our legal system is human in origin and in functionality there is always going to be the injection of emotions into a trial setting. The judge and jury will certainly have their feelings of right and wrong and thus many murderers do find that the punishments are different. And if the person doing the killing has a lot of money then they most likely will buy a lighter sentence (or freedom as did O.J. Simpson).

2007-06-11 05:17:36 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I can't think of a worse crime than killing a child intentionally, but you can get justice for the victim through legal means.

If a person has committed the act of murder, they will have to face the consequences of breaking the law. If the act was not pre-meditated they might face a lesser charge.

2007-06-11 05:27:36 · answer #3 · answered by Matt3471 3 · 0 0

Revenge is not seen as a reasonable motive - unless you get your revenge at the same time as the original crime - and then it could be seen as self defense.

But I think it should be. If someone killed my kid (which I don't have yet) then I would kill them and probably end up in jail. I would like to think that my peers would sympathize with my decisions and give me a lesser charge and lesser punishment...but you never know.

2007-06-11 07:03:14 · answer #4 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 0 0

Motive is not an element of a crime and need not be proven to obtain a conviction. Thus, motive also does not negate intent or otherwise diminish responsibility for a crime. Having said that, judges are provided leeway in sentencing in order to determine the situation of the particular defendant as it relates to the needs of society. One of the primary purposes of the criminal justice system is deterrence-both specific and general. General deterrence is used to deter others in society from committing similar crimes. A harsh sentence for one murder may deter others from committing the same crime. In this instance, punishment serves as a stronger deterrent because, based on your hypothetical, the deterrent is intended for people who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. Specific deterrent in this situation may dictate that the sentence be slightly less than another murder. This is because it is unlikely that this particular person will murder again if he or she is released. The murder occurred because of a specific set of facts which are not likely to be repeated. Additionally, many people can empathize with a parent who wanted vengeance for the killer of his or her child.

2007-06-11 05:21:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Some states provide stiffer punishment for "crimes of passion". Murder is just flat out never justified though. We may feel it vindicates our conscious, but it really does not. Ask anyone who has seen the person who killed a loved one if they feel better now that the perp got the death penalty and it was carried out. Many of them say no, they still have to move on.

2007-06-11 06:39:05 · answer #6 · answered by Holmes C 2 · 0 0

good question. the issue is that even in circumstances the place reason has been shown, harmless human beings have been sentenced to dying. As of as we communicate and since the mid 1970's 139 wrongly convicted human beings have been sentenced to dying. DNA isn't obtainable in homicides and it could no longer assure we will not execute harmless human beings. All states different than Alaska have existence without parole on the books. It ability precisely what it says. like the dying penalty it incapacitates criminals. It has 2 important reward over capital punishment. -an harmless guy or woman serving existence could be released from detention center -existence without parole expenses under the dying penalty

2016-10-08 23:46:33 · answer #7 · answered by tiara 4 · 0 0

this depends on several factors. i think most people would become pretty irrational if faced by the person who murdered or raped their child. god willing, i will never find out. iam a former police officer with the utmost respect for the law, however i cant honestly say that i could keep my cool in this situation..good question.

2007-06-11 05:18:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Based upon your example, in my own state you have cited two different offenses.

Murder, in my state, is where one intentionally kills another!

Manslaughter would be doing the same however with an exceptional circumstance such as killing in "the heat of passion."

The murder offense being a Class "A" Felony and the manslaughter being a Class "B" Felony!

Best wishes.

2007-06-11 05:18:14 · answer #9 · answered by KC V ™ 7 · 0 1

Revenge is not a reasonable motive. It short-circuits the proper operation of our criminal justice system. The only reasonable motive is self-defense.

2007-06-11 05:13:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers