Is there a mandatory minimum sentence for murder, or can the same sentence that one would receive as a result of the provocation law also be achieved if provocation is something that's considered when determining sentencing?
I would have alot more sympathy for someone who killed their child's murderer than one who killed their ex-girlfriend.
I would have sympathy, but this isn't the wild west and it's not okay to take the law into your own hands.
I find it baffling that people would seriously espouse the contrary.
Yes, but the question is whether or not someone who preforms a revenge killing on their child's rapist/murder is a lesser danger to society than crazy girlfriend stabbing man. Their crimes don't seem to equate.
AJAlkaline40 on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
Yes, but the question is whether or not someone who preforms a revenge killing on their child's rapist/murder is a lesser danger to society than crazy girlfriend stabbing man. Their crimes don't seem to equate.
Yes, that's why it's a mitigating factor taken into account during sentencing, but definitely not a criminal defense resulting in acquittal.
Yes, but the question is whether or not someone who preforms a revenge killing on their child's rapist/murder is a lesser danger to society than crazy girlfriend stabbing man. Their crimes don't seem to equate.
Yes, that's why it's a mitigating factor taken into account during sentencing, but definitely not a criminal defense resulting in acquittal.
Does acquittal in New Zealand work the way it does here? Or would they still be facing lesser charges such manslaughter or different levels of murder?
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
If a parent finds out that someone has been abusing their child for a long period of time and kills them in a fit of rage how is society bettered by locking them up and putting the child in foster care? How is society bettered by forcing a terminal patient, in constant pain every day, to continue living long past when they would want to?
People killing people is as old as our species. Murder laws are on the books because we believe that if I respect your life, you will respect mine. Those laws only work if people A. think they will get caught, and B. respect human life. The point here is that when we lock someone up for murder we really must look at are they a danger to society? If I kill three people over a two year period, hack their bodies up, and bury them in the desert then obviously putting me in prison is what is best for society. However if I come home and find a stranger in my house trying to tie up my half naked daughter and I shoot him 6 times in the back, how is justice served by locking me up?
The point to all this is that yes, there come points in life where killing the other guy is perfectly ok. Some people just need killing. We, as a society, try and establish a framework where some deaths are ok, and others are criminal. Is justice best served by incarceration or counseling? Why lock up someone who acted in self defense, defense of another, or in circumstances of extreme stress? In this case i think 216 stab wounds is a bit much to justify. However had to come home to find her feasting on the remains of his first born i would say 216 was probably not enough.
If a parent finds out that someone has been abusing their child for a long period of time and kills them in a fit of rage how is society bettered by locking them up and putting the child in foster care? How is society bettered by forcing a terminal patient, in constant pain every day, to continue living long past when they would want to?
People killing people is as old as our species. Murder laws are on the books because we believe that if I respect your life, you will respect mine. Those laws only work if people A. think they will get caught, and B. respect human life. The point here is that when we lock someone up for murder we really must look at are they a danger to society? If I kill three people over a two year period, hack their bodies up, and bury them in the desert then obviously putting me in prison is what is best for society. However if I come home and find a stranger in my house trying to tie up my half naked daughter and I shoot him 6 times in the back, how is justice served by locking me up?
The point to all this is that yes, there come points in life where killing the other guy is perfectly ok. Some people just need killing. We, as a society, try and establish a framework where some deaths are ok, and others are criminal. Is justice best served by incarceration or counseling? Why lock up someone who acted in self defense, defense of another, or in circumstances of extreme stress? In this case i think 216 stab wounds is a bit much to justify. However had to come home to find her feasting on the remains of his first born i would say 216 was probably not enough.
See, I think you are confusing several different metrics here, which it would be best to be clear on from the beginning.
However if I come home and find a stranger in my house trying to tie up my half naked daughter and I shoot him 6 times in the back, how is justice served by locking me up?
AFAIK, by most state laws if someone has broken into your house you have a fairly wide license to shoot them and claim self defense. Especially if they are actively in a position to threaten harm to another person.
However had to come home to find her feasting on the remains of his first born i would say 216 was probably not enough.
This would be, if my knowledge of law gained by watching Law and Order is any guide, extreme emotional disturbance. Which is not what this thread is about, AFAIK.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Yes, but the question is whether or not someone who preforms a revenge killing on their child's rapist/murder is a lesser danger to society than crazy girlfriend stabbing man. Their crimes don't seem to equate.
Yes, that's why it's a mitigating factor taken into account during sentencing, but definitely not a criminal defense resulting in acquittal.
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Ah, seems reasonable. Then yeah, in that case I can't see how provocation can ever be argued as a viable defense.
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
This seems completely not what the examples in the OP are about.
Here's a better one:
1) Someone kills your kid/wife/etc.
2) They get off on a legal technicality.
3) You gun them down on their way home.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
This guy's lawyer tried to get the charges down from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation
He was never just going to say "She made me do it" and walk away. He was always going to go to jail for killing someone the only difference is whether the law called it murder or manslaughter and the lengnth of the sentence.
Psychotic OneThe Lord of No PantsParts UnknownRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
I think some people are confusing Self defense and muder out side the heat of the moment. If you came home and someone was savagely beating your wife and daughter, based off most castle laws, his life is forefit. I know if someone was in my home threating my family I'd either shoot him or stab him depending if my gun or my knives were closest. IF you found the guy 2 weeks after the fact and hunted him down and shot him once in the back of the head that premeditated murder.
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Well, it's a defense, just not a complete defense. In most jurisdictions it would probably get you a reduction from murder two to manslaughter.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
I think provocation would be more of a factor if he didn't stab her 216 times. I imagine it would be more fitting in a situation where someone is already angry, has a weapon in hand, and the victim continues to provoke the person holding the weapon. Except not if the guy with the weapon stabs the victim over 200 times.
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Well, it's a defense, just not a complete defense. In most jurisdictions it would probably get you a reduction from murder two to manslaughter.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
See, that too me sounds like an indictment against the notion of a provocation killing. There's no language which makes it acceptable to murder someone.
I think provocation would be more of a factor if he didn't stab her 216 times. I imagine it would be more fitting in a situation where someone is already angry, has a weapon in hand, and the victim continues to provoke the person holding the weapon. Except not if the guy with the weapon stabs the victim over 200 times.
Apparently it's pretty common. Either someone's stabbed one or two times or something on the level of 100-200 times. Basically, the victim starts thrashing around and the killer freaks out and just goes totally crazy with the stabbing. It doesn't really indicate viciousness but more indicates emotional control. That's the theory, at least. In any case, it's not as unusual as it seems for there to be that many stab wounds in a body.
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Well, it's a defense, just not a complete defense. In most jurisdictions it would probably get you a reduction from murder two to manslaughter.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
See, that too me sounds like an indictment against the notion of a provocation killing. There's no language which makes it acceptable to murder someone.
Well, I'm not saying that it's acceptable. But the law has different grades of homicide for a reason. It's not like you're saying someone's innocent when murder gets downgraded to intentional manslaughter. The only difference is the state of mind of the killer. For manslaughter the requirement is usually that he is under the effect of extreme emotional or mental disturbance.
But in any case, I don't think there's a justice system in the world that says, "Oh, you were provoked to the point of extreme emotional disturbance, you're free to go." You're still looking at up to 20 years for manslaughter.
I thought the logic of provocation went somewhat like this: you walk in and find someone raping your child. You proceed to stab them 34 times before you've calmed down. Are we really going to reasonably find someone had much choice in not doing that?
That's not really an issue of provocation. You would have the right in that case to use deadly force to protect another, especially a family member in your own home.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Well, it's a defense, just not a complete defense. In most jurisdictions it would probably get you a reduction from murder two to manslaughter.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
See, that too me sounds like an indictment against the notion of a provocation killing. There's no language which makes it acceptable to murder someone.
This seems like a bit of a black and white view, taking a real example into consideration here (R v Camplin, if you care) a fifteen year old boy was raped and then subsequently taunted and laughed at by his rapist. He then beat the rapist to death with a nearby saucepan.
Bearing in mind that, at least in the UK where the crime was committed, murder is a mandatory life sentence (Though admittedly you can be paroled earlier than this), do you really think that this boy deserved to be hit with a life sentence for what he did?
Now I admit that you could deal with this by removing the mandatory life sentence on murder and taking the provocation into account during sentencing. However, it should also be recognised that there is a particular stigma associated with being called a murderer. Is it really fair to put the title of "murderer" on someone in a case such as this, do they really belong in the same category as a person who commits a premeditated murder in cold blood?
The provocation defence allows a person to recieve an adequate punishment for their crime (Hell, they've killed someone - they have to be punished in some way after all) but without simply throwing them into the same category as people who have committed far worse crimes while in a more stable mental condition.
At best, stabbing someone 216 times should have been argued as temporary insanity by the defense if they wanted a snowball's chance in Hell of being believable. It's rather difficult to justify being provoked into stabbing someone 216 times. 215 maybe, but that 216th stab just pushes it over the edge.
My memory is a bit sketchy on the details, but there was a case where a teenager was acquitted of murdering his father on the grounds that he was provoked. Basically, the father and son were fighting and the father was yelling at the son about whether he thought he was big man, put a knife in the kid's hand and dared him to stab him. The kid dropped the knife and the father picked it up, put it back in the kid's hand, and dared him again, at which point the kid carried out his father's wishes. It was found to be a clear case of provocation on the part of the victim.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
That's troubling. If that is the case, then people in Miami don't have the same protection under the law as, say, people in St. Louis. Ah, the joys of multiculturalism.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
At best, stabbing someone 216 times should have been argued as temporary insanity by the defense if they wanted a snowball's chance in Hell of being believable. It's rather difficult to justify being provoked into stabbing someone 216 times. 215 maybe, but that 216th stab just pushes it over the edge.
My memory is a bit sketchy on the details, but there was a case where a teenager was acquitted of murdering his father on the grounds that he was provoked. Basically, the father and son were fighting and the father was yelling at the son about whether he thought he was big man, put a knife in the kid's hand and dared him to stab him. The kid dropped the knife and the father picked it up, put it back in the kid's hand, and dared him again, at which point the kid carried out his father's wishes. It was found to be a clear case of provocation on the part of the victim.
Bet you can't stab me over 200 times, pussy. You don't have the arm for it!
Seriously, this guy is crazy, and provocation should be a sentencing mitigation more than an actual defense to me. Especially since in this context it doesn't seem the law is "asked me to kill him" as much as "something bad happened, and I flew into a rage for X reason"
While "he needed killin'" is sometimes understandable, I don't think it's a good idea for society to give the impression that each individual is empowered to decide when the "needs killin'" threshold is met, beyond obvious cases of immediate defense.
Also, the thread title is misleading. I thought this was going to be about assisted suicide, not Judge Dredd.
there is clearly a difference between someone killing his child's murderer two years after the fact and someone killing his girlfriend who refused to give him a blowjob.
i think there should be some kind of legal mechanism for addressing the former, but i dont think the "provocation" terminology or ideology is appropriate. provocation suggests "heat of the moment" connotations, which are more properly addressed by manslaughter and/or self defense.
i think there should be a crime called something like "felony revenge", which, if it results in death, is one step above manslaughter, but one step below murder. if it doesnt result in death, then it should be one step below assault and battery (aggravated or not depending on the facts).
some people should be beaten or killed. private individuals should never, ever have a right to do such beating or killing (except in self defense). however, if a private individual does beat or kill someone who (a jury believes) deserved such treatment, then such private individual should be convicted of a lighter (but still heavy) crime.
Ketherial on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
I don't think it's a good idea for society to give the impression that each individual is empowered to decide when the "needs killin'" threshold is met, beyond obvious cases of immediate defense.
I'm a bit sketchy on the details and google isn't being much help, but wasn't there a case in the U.S., a few years ago, where a white man called a black man a "n-word" and was accidentally killed, I believe he was punched and sustained a head injury, and the man was let off due to provocation?
Anyone know what I'm talking about? I remember talking about it a law class I took, but it may have just been a hypothetical.
Provocation implies both heat of the moment and no self-defense motive. So killing the guy raping your child right now, or killing him two years later, shouldn't fall under that category.
I think the relevant hypothetical would have to be: You catch the rapist of your child just as he was zipping-up/leaving. Honestly, if I were on a jury for that, I'd vote that's no murder.
Provocation implies both heat of the moment and no self-defense motive. So killing the guy raping your child right now, or killing him two years later, shouldn't fall under that category.
I think the relevant hypothetical would have to be: You catch the rapist of your child just as he was zipping-up/leaving. Honestly, if I were on a jury for that, I'd vote that's no murder.
I don't know, I think it would depend very much on how I was feeling at the time - surely if the law states that him raping your child is not a crime sufficient to cost him his life at the hands of the state, then it most certainly doesn't make it alright for you to do it. Particularly in places like the UK where the state isn't even allowed to murder somone and self defence has to be proportionate.
On the other hand, there's sometimes when you hear about these things and think I'd probably be happy to kill them myself regardless of the consequences. In fact, because of that I'd probably side with the 'its never acceptable to take a life, unless to save another' crowd - since its this sort of thing that the law is for.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
That's troubling. If that is the case, then people in Miami don't have the same protection under the law as, say, people in St. Louis. Ah, the joys of multiculturalism.
Uh, I don't think that word means what you think it means...
The Cat on
0
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
I think provocation would be more of a factor if he didn't stab her 216 times. I imagine it would be more fitting in a situation where someone is already angry, has a weapon in hand, and the victim continues to provoke the person holding the weapon. Except not if the guy with the weapon stabs the victim over 200 times.
Apparently it's pretty common. Either someone's stabbed one or two times or something on the level of 100-200 times. Basically, the victim starts thrashing around and the killer freaks out and just goes totally crazy with the stabbing. It doesn't really indicate viciousness but more indicates emotional control. That's the theory, at least. In any case, it's not as unusual as it seems for there to be that many stab wounds in a body.
Or maybe the dude is just part man, part sewing machine, and can get off upwards of 50 stabs per second. By the time realization struck him, he'd already gone all running-stitch on the poor gal.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
This seems like a bit of a black and white view, taking a real example into consideration here (R v Camplin, if you care) a fifteen year old boy was raped and then subsequently taunted and laughed at by his rapist. He then beat the rapist to death with a nearby saucepan.
Bearing in mind that, at least in the UK where the crime was committed, murder is a mandatory life sentence (Though admittedly you can be paroled earlier than this), do you really think that this boy deserved to be hit with a life sentence for what he did?
Now I admit that you could deal with this by removing the mandatory life sentence on murder and taking the provocation into account during sentencing. However, it should also be recognised that there is a particular stigma associated with being called a murderer. Is it really fair to put the title of "murderer" on someone in a case such as this, do they really belong in the same category as a person who commits a premeditated murder in cold blood?
The provocation defence allows a person to recieve an adequate punishment for their crime (Hell, they've killed someone - they have to be punished in some way after all) but without simply throwing them into the same category as people who have committed far worse crimes while in a more stable mental condition.
This seems entirely dissimilar to the case I was responding to though, because a crime had previously been committed against this person. The example given was simply of words being exchanged, and then, as stated someone decided someone else "needs killin'".
Also, the thread title is misleading. I thought this was going to be about assisted suicide, not Judge Dredd.
Judge Dredd was about an authoritarian state gone into overdrive.
Cruel objective state-sanctioned 'justice' =/= the capriciousness inherent in subjective notions of justice in vigilantism
I believe you meant to say Batman.
On a side note, what would be your objective definition of 'provocation'?
I mean, if a loonie (technical term) killed somebody because his dog told him to do it, couldn't that be covered by provocation? I mean, the dog totally thought that guy had it coming to him. The dog gives pretty good advice most of the time. He/It's the reason I waited to get a Tivo.
What if the victim was wearing red? Are men not just bipedal bulls?
It seems like 'witnessing or being subject to severe criminal violence' should just about cover it. Doesn't allow for sentence mitigation in the case of, say, someone who punched someone else back in a bar, but it does allow for it in cases of extended domestic violence followed by a defensive brainsnap.
Registered User regular
Posts
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I would have sympathy, but this isn't the wild west and it's not okay to take the law into your own hands.
I find it baffling that people would seriously espouse the contrary.
Yes, but the question is whether or not someone who preforms a revenge killing on their child's rapist/murder is a lesser danger to society than crazy girlfriend stabbing man. Their crimes don't seem to equate.
Yes, that's why it's a mitigating factor taken into account during sentencing, but definitely not a criminal defense resulting in acquittal.
At that point how difficult is it to distinguish stab #195 from stab #198?
Does acquittal in New Zealand work the way it does here? Or would they still be facing lesser charges such manslaughter or different levels of murder?
People killing people is as old as our species. Murder laws are on the books because we believe that if I respect your life, you will respect mine. Those laws only work if people A. think they will get caught, and B. respect human life. The point here is that when we lock someone up for murder we really must look at are they a danger to society? If I kill three people over a two year period, hack their bodies up, and bury them in the desert then obviously putting me in prison is what is best for society. However if I come home and find a stranger in my house trying to tie up my half naked daughter and I shoot him 6 times in the back, how is justice served by locking me up?
The point to all this is that yes, there come points in life where killing the other guy is perfectly ok. Some people just need killing. We, as a society, try and establish a framework where some deaths are ok, and others are criminal. Is justice best served by incarceration or counseling? Why lock up someone who acted in self defense, defense of another, or in circumstances of extreme stress? In this case i think 216 stab wounds is a bit much to justify. However had to come home to find her feasting on the remains of his first born i would say 216 was probably not enough.
See, I think you are confusing several different metrics here, which it would be best to be clear on from the beginning.
AFAIK, by most state laws if someone has broken into your house you have a fairly wide license to shoot them and claim self defense. Especially if they are actively in a position to threaten harm to another person.
This would be, if my knowledge of law gained by watching Law and Order is any guide, extreme emotional disturbance. Which is not what this thread is about, AFAIK.
Provocation would be more along the lines of me calling you filthy names and insulting your parentage. If you gank me in response, you're going to jail in every circumstance I can think of for either first or second degree murder.
Generally speaking, the fact that someone else enraged you is not a defense to you visiting violence upon them.
Rigorous Scholarship
This seems completely not what the examples in the OP are about.
Here's a better one:
1) Someone kills your kid/wife/etc.
2) They get off on a legal technicality.
3) You gun them down on their way home.
Since you missed in the my OP He was never just going to say "She made me do it" and walk away. He was always going to go to jail for killing someone the only difference is whether the law called it murder or manslaughter and the lengnth of the sentence.
Switch Friend Code: SW-3349-7357-2013
3DS Friend code: 3093 8504 2352
Well, it's a defense, just not a complete defense. In most jurisdictions it would probably get you a reduction from murder two to manslaughter.
In Miami, prosecutors deal with something called "maricon killings." Basically, some latino kills another guy who has insulted his manhood in some serious way, either by literally calling him a "maricon" (queer, but much more harsh) or in some equivalent manner. It's generally considered a waste of time to pursue a murder conviction in those cases because of the killer's state of mind at the time and cultural norms.
Apparently it's pretty common. Either someone's stabbed one or two times or something on the level of 100-200 times. Basically, the victim starts thrashing around and the killer freaks out and just goes totally crazy with the stabbing. It doesn't really indicate viciousness but more indicates emotional control. That's the theory, at least. In any case, it's not as unusual as it seems for there to be that many stab wounds in a body.
Well, I'm not saying that it's acceptable. But the law has different grades of homicide for a reason. It's not like you're saying someone's innocent when murder gets downgraded to intentional manslaughter. The only difference is the state of mind of the killer. For manslaughter the requirement is usually that he is under the effect of extreme emotional or mental disturbance.
But in any case, I don't think there's a justice system in the world that says, "Oh, you were provoked to the point of extreme emotional disturbance, you're free to go." You're still looking at up to 20 years for manslaughter.
This seems like a bit of a black and white view, taking a real example into consideration here (R v Camplin, if you care) a fifteen year old boy was raped and then subsequently taunted and laughed at by his rapist. He then beat the rapist to death with a nearby saucepan.
Bearing in mind that, at least in the UK where the crime was committed, murder is a mandatory life sentence (Though admittedly you can be paroled earlier than this), do you really think that this boy deserved to be hit with a life sentence for what he did?
Now I admit that you could deal with this by removing the mandatory life sentence on murder and taking the provocation into account during sentencing. However, it should also be recognised that there is a particular stigma associated with being called a murderer. Is it really fair to put the title of "murderer" on someone in a case such as this, do they really belong in the same category as a person who commits a premeditated murder in cold blood?
The provocation defence allows a person to recieve an adequate punishment for their crime (Hell, they've killed someone - they have to be punished in some way after all) but without simply throwing them into the same category as people who have committed far worse crimes while in a more stable mental condition.
My memory is a bit sketchy on the details, but there was a case where a teenager was acquitted of murdering his father on the grounds that he was provoked. Basically, the father and son were fighting and the father was yelling at the son about whether he thought he was big man, put a knife in the kid's hand and dared him to stab him. The kid dropped the knife and the father picked it up, put it back in the kid's hand, and dared him again, at which point the kid carried out his father's wishes. It was found to be a clear case of provocation on the part of the victim.
Rigorous Scholarship
Bet you can't stab me over 200 times, pussy. You don't have the arm for it!
Seriously, this guy is crazy, and provocation should be a sentencing mitigation more than an actual defense to me. Especially since in this context it doesn't seem the law is "asked me to kill him" as much as "something bad happened, and I flew into a rage for X reason"
Also, the thread title is misleading. I thought this was going to be about assisted suicide, not Judge Dredd.
i think there should be some kind of legal mechanism for addressing the former, but i dont think the "provocation" terminology or ideology is appropriate. provocation suggests "heat of the moment" connotations, which are more properly addressed by manslaughter and/or self defense.
i think there should be a crime called something like "felony revenge", which, if it results in death, is one step above manslaughter, but one step below murder. if it doesnt result in death, then it should be one step below assault and battery (aggravated or not depending on the facts).
some people should be beaten or killed. private individuals should never, ever have a right to do such beating or killing (except in self defense). however, if a private individual does beat or kill someone who (a jury believes) deserved such treatment, then such private individual should be convicted of a lighter (but still heavy) crime.
Anyone know what I'm talking about? I remember talking about it a law class I took, but it may have just been a hypothetical.
I think the relevant hypothetical would have to be: You catch the rapist of your child just as he was zipping-up/leaving. Honestly, if I were on a jury for that, I'd vote that's no murder.
I don't know, I think it would depend very much on how I was feeling at the time - surely if the law states that him raping your child is not a crime sufficient to cost him his life at the hands of the state, then it most certainly doesn't make it alright for you to do it. Particularly in places like the UK where the state isn't even allowed to murder somone and self defence has to be proportionate.
On the other hand, there's sometimes when you hear about these things and think I'd probably be happy to kill them myself regardless of the consequences. In fact, because of that I'd probably side with the 'its never acceptable to take a life, unless to save another' crowd - since its this sort of thing that the law is for.
Or maybe the dude is just part man, part sewing machine, and can get off upwards of 50 stabs per second. By the time realization struck him, he'd already gone all running-stitch on the poor gal.
Judge Dredd was about an authoritarian state gone into overdrive.
Cruel objective state-sanctioned 'justice' =/= the capriciousness inherent in subjective notions of justice in vigilantism
I believe you meant to say Batman.
On a side note, what would be your objective definition of 'provocation'?
I mean, if a loonie (technical term) killed somebody because his dog told him to do it, couldn't that be covered by provocation? I mean, the dog totally thought that guy had it coming to him. The dog gives pretty good advice most of the time. He/It's the reason I waited to get a Tivo.
What if the victim was wearing red? Are men not just bipedal bulls?