I see you found a gocha question. So if she shot the boy while being held at gun point it would be self defense. If she shot the boy in the knee once after he ran away I would put about 5 years for that. But two or three times, you just crossed the line of self defense into murder. At this point it was a revenge killing. IF you could find a jury to convict her, I would say she should be tried as a murdered.
I would disagree. You would need some forensic evidence to indicate that she didn't just panic shoot three shots off at the same time. Good shooters are trained to shoot in controlled pairs or triplets, so the fact that it was more then one shot really doesn't prove anything on its own. Now if you could go dexter morgan on the case and prove that she shot him once, and then walked up and fired off another few rounds into him (and that he wasn't still resisting) then maybe I can see your case.
My thought process being that the kid was a block away and no longer posing any threat to her, so she shoots him is some sort of revenge killing. I really dont have enough information to make an informed desicion. This was posed with the hopes of making me out to be a monster for not giving special treatment to a grandmother.
The most serious of crimes should be dealt with by the death penalty. That's calculating serial killers. Most people wouldn't spend money to have these people looked after in prison, and they certainly wouldn't keep them alive for more than 30 years rotting away in it. Punishment doesn't mean taking criminals under your wing. The death penalty, in this case, is to ensure the safety of the public and to reduce the amount we spend on prolonging the lives of useless and dangerous criminals, not out of "revenge". I have no problem with disposing of these people. Even if they are rehabilitated and unleashed back into the world, nobody wants to employ a fucking serial killer.
I am against the death penalty. If a man kills somebody, he should replay it with the short amount of mortal years he has. But not by killing that man. If you do kill that man, then 2 people are dead. 2 people that could have been beneficial to your goverment (taxes, service, work, etc.) Also a prison needs to be more a ''re education''. It needs to be your goal to help them to be lawfull people. And yes not all prisoners can have this. Not by a long shot. However, there are some people that are to dangerous. And you need to neutralize them. (mass murderers, serial killers, genocidal gassing, killing your own people, etc.) But you have to have a clear line between the ''simple murderers'' and the ''Mass killing genocidal Hitlers''.
as said by some of t he others if it is a serial killer or other mass murderer they should be put to the death if he only killed one he can rot in prison for all i care
The Death Penalty is Soft on Crime!!! Capitalisation FTW!! Seriously, you are all very tied up in your false dicotomy. One side doesn't want to kill people, one wants to punish people; neither realising their is a better option. Let us first realise that by violating the Responsibilities of the Social Contract the criminal has lost any associated priviledge, importantly including: Compensation for Labour Movement Comfortable Living Sustinence of a Greater than Minimum Nature Entertainment Free Socialisation. Second, let us realise that the Criminal System is designed in two parts: Justice and Societal Recompense. Justice is the blind force that wieghs the situation on her scales and, on finiding injustice, draws Nemisis and seeks to punish the one who has created the Injustice. Societal Recompense ocourrs because Society has lost in some manner, and therefore it must have recompense. These two requirments can be met however: by imprisonment in a system of forced labour towards societal betterment in conditions of hardship. Thus society gains recompense, at least partially in the case of the most serious of crimes, and Justice can deliver the greatest Punisment. A third element is Societal Mercy. For lesser crimes when Justice does not demand life long imprisonment and society would be unjustifiably enriched by it then their are many options for society. It may offer a new entrance into the Social Contract, perhaps with reduced Priviledges. It may decide on exclusion from society to the state of nature. It may offer rehabilitation and reeducation in order to gain the maximum amount of good for society as a whole. These things are nothing to do with the Criminal System and form Societal Mercy. This is far better for all involved than either of the two opions argued above.
I was for it until I heard the more religious side of why it should not be practiced. The Vatican, of course, is in favor of not having the Death Penalty so I would have to agree with it by virtue of it being the Vatican.
The Vatican is against the death penalty? oh the irony. Side note: I know its spelled Though any idea knows that, however i just wanted to piss people off and see how mad they would get (you know who you are)
lol. So basically, just because the Vatican says something is wrong and immoral, its wrong and immoral? If the Vatican told you you would not go to heaven unless you jumped off a bridge right now, would you go jump off a bridge?
Most people are smart enough to know that jumping off a bridge is suicidal, and thus bad. Just like most people are smart enough to know that murder is bad. I guess you didn't get that memo.
Most people are smart enough to know that jumping off a bridge is suicidal, and thus bad. Just like most people are smart enough to know that murder is bad. I guess you didn't get that memo.[/quote:3s880bx1] Depends on how high the bridge is and is there enough bodies below me that when i jump i only fall 3 feet before hitting a body and go oh that wasn't so bad.
Death penalty isn't justifiable; it is not a deterrent, it costs at least as much as life imprisonment, and it's an ethical minefield. Better that all the guilty men go free so that one innocent man is spared the axe.
Death penalty is not used as punishment as Shaw suggested at the beginning of this thread, it is used for protection. If they figure your dangerous they kill you so you won't hurt anyone again. Other options include locking them up for life, but I think a bullet would save on costs and time really. Let's just donate them to science. Live test subjects are so hard to come by. In all seriousness though, I don't have a solution everyone will like. I don't think anyone does.
Personally if the criminal is say a mass murderer that has planned out the murders or commits something utterly barbaric to another person and they know exactly what they were doing then they by my views deserve to die .
In the U.S., I hear that it varies depending on where you go [in their states]. But the main cost is in the appeals process [so I hear]. China used to do it for pretty much anything [used to being only a few years ago]. Nowerdays they reserve it for some of the higher offences, I believe.
