Mistake, a second chance?

[the_cobbinator]

Now I've been watching typical movie where a boy and a girl have an argument, he has been cheating on her with n years younger secretary.
When she found out, she flipped, grabbed the pistol he kept hidden in the drawer and shot him. Of course he dropped dead and she regretted the act the moment after she pulled the trigger. No matter how hard she tries to cover it up, of course the police finds her and locks her up. She got 30 years.

Now, after watching of the movie it got me thinking: she killed someone, gota verdict and did her time in jail. She was trialled for murder the same way a cold blooded calculative murderer would be, like a gangster who ran over a kid on the road carelessly, or a son that killed his father becasue he threatened to exclude him out of the will.

when all of them got out, they'd be forever murderers in eyes of the society, regardless that being an act of momental passion and loss of self control, lack of any kind of morals or calculative plan. Do they in fact all deserve the same treatment for their action? true there is no justification for murder and the excuse "shit happens" isn't a very good one, but if it was you and you were one of the jurors in the court and would have to punish all 3 of them, do you believe all three would deserve the same punishment regardless when they are being trialled for the same crime: murder.

Do you believe that there are murders (other various crimes done inintentionally) that are more forgivable than others?

Upon finishing the movie I felt sorry for the girl that had to sit 30 years. She loved the man and the fact he found out he was cheating of her left her heartbroken and she did something silly, something she didn't want, a crime of passion. I don't feel that pity seeing a rapist rape and kill his victim. Even though what they both did was murder they committed willingly.

I certainly wouldn't give her same treatment and punishment than random rapist.
Sad fact is, that in real world rapist would probably walk out free in half of the time she got in this movie.

So bottom line is, do you think that taking someone's life/committing any harmful unplanned crimes that I'd roughly describe as "accident" should be treated the same as cold blooded murders?

One thing though, if you reply, when talking strictly about murders please do NOT reply with things like"oh but life is invaluable there's no excuse in taking it". One life is a tragedy, million is a statistics. There are SO many whose lives were taken and we have no way of knowing it. Ignore the victim and take a look at act itself. Do they all deserve the same punishment even thought end result is the same?

[emoloz]

I see what you mean completely and i agree the mentality of a person should be calculated with the price of the crime. I am not for killing more people with the chair and all that its a waste when we can use these people to study and find out why a person should act in some way.

The thing is it is hard because a lot of people have simular traits be them elongated or over a short period of time. For a time she wanted and had the drive to kill like mass murders do its whats behind it thats difference because she wanted to kill him for what he had done and usually a killer kills because of maybe say past life events.

I mean hers is more treatable than his and shouldn't be stuck in a high security prison because her murder was a shorts trigger however like a murderer how do you kno she won't do that again to someone else.

I believe we should try help the core and stick the people who sort of need a reason to kill away from the people who kill as a result of something else.

[Rain]

I dunno about other countries, but in the US there are different levels

1st degree: has both intent and its premeditated
2nd degree: intent but it wasn't premeditated
3rd degree: murder with no intent or premeditation

each come with different levels of severity (usually)

it sucks she got so many years, but honestly, for 2nd degree murder (which is most likely what she was charged with) 30 years isn't too too bad

[neverwinter]

Do you believe that there are murders (other various crimes done inintentionally) that are more forgivable than others?


Without a doubt yes. What if you were witnessing someone attack your partner or child with a knife? You lash out with something close to hand and kill the attacker. It may be murder, but does that equal the same thing as someone who kills for the pleasure of it?

Murder is never excusable but then try telling that to the person who is defending their family or loved ones. To them the murder was fair and the right thing to do at the time...and who could argue with that person. Wouldnt ANY of us, in that same situation, be prepared to kill to protect those we love?

I guess thats why we have a justice system and a court of law. Its for them to decide the punishment. But I definetly feel that murder has many layers to it, some worse than others...

[Fyrefox]

I don't know about anyone else, but....

I'm a marital artist. This means I have the ability to take a life if the situation warrants it , with my bare hands. It also means I can judge roughly how much it'll take to incapitate them and prevent the killing. But if I go beyond what is needed, and kill the guy when there wasn't any absolute need for it, it's 1st degree murder. Self-defense only extends as far as the protection of myself, and maybe others. When there is no need for that self-defense, that part of the law ceases to work for me. Personally, I think what the guy did in this case wasn't justifiable, but she shoudn't have shot him. So they were both wrong, and both got what they deserved. Heat of the moment isn't an excuse.

[Rain]

Self-defense works up until there is no more threat to your well being, but in the heat of the moment, that is a hard point to tell

So if you are attacked, and you fight back, and they start to go down after the first hit, but you deliever a second, you are techically in the wrong, but no jury would convict you for it, and even if it did it would be 3rd degree

[lilsakura]

I think she was totally in the wrong. Moment of passion or not. To do something of that degree is no excuse. Taking human life for something like that is disgusting and inexcusable. The only time things should be seen differently is if someone killed in self-defense. That's something different but that fact of the matter is, this girl did something as huge as that over something like being unfathful. Now if someone were unfaithful to me, I'd ditch him without a second thought but never inflict harm that's unrepairable.

[speedphantom]

That's a tough one, I'd like to think yes that some crimes are more forgivable than others definitely. It's hard to imagine the desire to kill someone and then regretting it immediately after. Still, a crime of passion is murder nonetheless and it's committed with the knowledge of the consequences, probably in the back of the mind, but known consequences.

But what's more important I think, is the reform of that person. Being stuck in jail for 30 years with other criminals and having the same routine for the whole duration of your stay does not make you a better person when you get out, it'll probably make you worse.

Jails are a terrible way to deal with criminals, because it punishes rather than reform the people.

[kiera2]

People have to be judged for their intent rather than their actions simply because we can never be completely certain of the outcome when we try to do something. If I see a tiger about to leap on my friend and devour her, and I try to shoot the tiger but miss and hit my friend, am I guilty of murder? What if I'm firing a pistol at an outdoor shooting range and some moron jumps up from the ditch behind the target just as I fire?

[Hiraeth]

What if I'm firing a pistol at an outdoor shooting range and some moron jumps up from the ditch behind the target just as I fire?

Then you're actually cleansing the gene pool and it counts as a public service.

[melboyd~]

I do feel bad for the girl who ended up 30 years in jail just like (or worst than) the cold blooded murderers.

However, to pull that trigger at a defenseless human being (even I find it really disturbing to even point it at pets, animals, you get what I mean) for a love crime is lacking rationality. That guy hurt her feelings so she should hurt his in return if she really wants a pay back, but she didn't have the right to take other's life.

I think that the law (in the case of the first post in this thread) places the same punishment to all murderers regardless of their reason is as a way to give a warning that murder, regardless of the intents and reasons, will lead to the same consequence, i.e. death of a person. It's a way to emphasis how dead serious that action is ... and is not to be done even when you have the power in your hands imo. The US system like said by rain, does give some levels/degrees of murder which I think is good for various murder cases and it'll give at least a fairer sentence. I'm not sure about the system in my country, but now I think I should care :p

[kiera2]

However, to pull that trigger at a defenseless human being (even I find it really disturbing to even point it at pets, animals, you get what I mean) for a love crime is lacking rationality. That guy hurt her feelings so she should hurt his in return if she really wants a pay back, but she didn't have the right to take other's life.
Of course your reasoning makes sense. But the whole point is that emotion has nothing whatsoever to do with rationality. When you're in a blind rage you don't have the ability to reason out consequences.

[Fyrefox]

Of course your reasoning makes sense. But the whole point is that emotion has nothing whatsoever to do with rationality. When you're in a blind rage you don't have the ability to reason out consequences.

Please read my last post, if you have not done so. In it, I explain that heat of the moment is not a valid legal reason. Yeah, she's hurt emotionally, but she killed a guy. Even though she was acting illogically, logic has nothing to do with it. She overreacted, and paid the price.

[Hollow_Cero]

Please remember that if you come to Texas and kill someone, we will kill you back

[Rain]

fyre- it might not a be a reason to legally excuse you, but it does count for two things

1) you can use it to argue temp. insanity (which is very difficult to be granted, but still)

2) it pulls on the emotional strings of jurors

So while it might not be a legal excuse, it does generally get you excused for murder


Hollow_Cero- :lmao

[♠ Saint ♠]

Wow, this is a topic that I actually feel very strongly about.

First off, no one wakes up one day and decides to commit a crime out of the blue. People move in patterns of behavior and when someone commits a crime, the crime scene will tell you about the perpetrator. Just like how art tells you about the painter, the crime tells you about the criminal.

Now. Not having seen the film in question and going off the details given, I think 30 years is sufficient. Heat of the moment, my foot. Why was the pistol there? How far did she have to walk to get it? How long did it take her to get to that gun, pick it up and get her boyfriend in range to shoot him? Who owned the pistol? Why was it there?

I'll bet, that if you looked into this woman's past, you find that she likely has been cheated on before and probably has some pronounced emotional insecurities. The urge here would be to make him hurt just as she was hurting, to get him to feel her pain. That in itself could constitute a sort of revenge for her broken heart.

How many of us have been cheated on by a lover or spouse? Show of hands, thank you, and now, how many of us have killed said lover or spouse? Seeing that you are still reading, I'm assuming you are not behind bars. It's natural to be hurt by an event but usually revenge is taken out in more rationally irrational ways. Example, I had an ex that tried to run me over with his truck after his clinginess overwhelmed me. Seriously, I hurt my ankle trying to get away. His truck was his pride and joy so I turned his tires into rubber noodles. Okay, maybe that made sense, but the times that I did have a lover cheat, I never once thought about harming them physically. I just prayed they'd find the insight to look into their actions. A cheesy solution, sure, but I won't deny my obvious rage at the betrayal.

The problem is that a lot of courts still consider behavioral science and criminal profiling to be a sort of a voodoo thing and won't allow it. Mind you, even the best profilers mess up because it isn't an exact science although it is extremely detailed. Likely (and this happens so freaking much in rape and murder cases, the defendant's past was not allowed to be brought up by the prosecution on the grounds that it would be unfaily prejudicial to the jury.

Case in point (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Dunne)

That was the exact case here. Dunne's murderer had a previous relationship where he beat and choked his girlfriend and the ex-girlfriend was not allowed to testify because the Judge thought it was too damaging to the defendant and violated his right to a fair trial. The charges were reduced from second degree murder to third degree murder and/or manslaughter. Basically, most of the materials that would have shown Dunne's murderer for what he is was thrown out while the defense dragged Dunne's name and character through the mud. Verdict? Guilty of manslaughter. The public was OUTRAGED with a capital O and the Judge had to do a fast backtrack to maintain face. He took a cheapshot at the jury and burned them for their verdict. The defendant got 6 years, I think, served 4, and got out. 4 years for choking and beating his victim to death inside of 5 minutes. That was 5 minutes to change his mind and realize that he was doing something wrong but he was too wrapped up in his obsession to see things clearly.

Heat of the moment? Stuff that noise. Dig a little deeper into that woman's background and see what you find.

[kiera2]

Please read my last post, if you have not done so. In it, I explain that heat of the moment is not a valid legal reason.
The question is whether or not you think it should be a valid defense, not whether it is at the moment. Asking whether or not it is a legal defense would lead to a pretty short debate, considering it's a straightforward yes/no answer.

[Shdo]

pretty simple, its all about the intentions that the person had during the killing. this is the difference between manslaughter and murder, in the first its an accident and the latter is intended.

if someone shot someone else that is pretty much a murder, be it for revenge or rage or showing how 'tough' you are or because that person owe you money and refuse to pay. once you have intention and a act its enough for me.

like saint said, how much time did she have to go to the gun, take it and go and shot the husband? did he threatened her? attacked her? those are factors but it will most likely ended up the same, she took the gun knowing its a tool for killing and went to her husband and shot him.


now i had a m-16 strapped to my back for 3 years and even when people pissed me off not once did I or any one else (and i pissed people as well) even looked on our rifle with the thought of shooting that other person, and each of us had enough ammo to take out the entire outpost 5 times. in the end if there is no intentions it wouldnt happend.

(actually there was this one case but the guy was pretty much...simple minded...a funny story actually.)

[♠ Saint ♠]

The question is whether or not you think it should be a valid defense, not whether it is at the moment. Asking whether or not it is a legal defense would lead to a pretty short debate, considering it's a straightforward yes/no answer.

Simple. It should not be. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Everyone knows that killing other human beings is against the law so killing one in the heat of the moment is ludicrous.

And now, the question that my hero, John Douglas, asks everytime someone tries to play an insanity, diminished capacity, or heat of the moment defense"

"If there was a law enforcement officer standing there, would they have done the same exact thing?"

[kiera2]

"If there was a law enforcement officer standing there, would they have done the same exact thing?"
I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many cases in which they would have.

[♠ Saint ♠]

I have no doubt whatsoever that there are many cases in which they would have.

Find me a case then. Excluding bank robberies since by their very nature means that the robber will come into contact with some form of security or LEO. You will find that the cases in which someone does commit a crime in front of a police officer, the perpetrator is likely mentally ill or attempting a suicide by cop. When someone commits a crime, there is a tendency to want to cover up the crime or get away with it, be it out of arrogance or not wanting to get into trouble. Honestly, I've read many cases and case studies and have talked with my relatives and friends who are in the law enforcement field. When confronted by a cop, someone with a guilty conscience and a degree of cowardice will run. With a degree of callousness, they will take a shot at the cop.

Even just working security at a local government building, I've watched individuals loiter outside, looking at cameras and windows and the security detail inside. As a security officer, we are all trained to assess risk of any individual at any given moment. While it may not be a guard's duty to get directly involved, just having uniformed security there acts as a major deterrent. Whenever I noticed anyone loitering or acting suspiciously, my partner and I would approach them and ask if they were lost or need help. Sometimes, it was a genuinely confused person looking for the Courthouse (since most people got my building and the Courthouse confused) and every now and then, they'd murmur some excuse and walk away.

Honestly, find me a case and we shall debate it.

[kiera2]

Honestly, find me a case and we shall debate it.
I'm just talking from personal experience - I've seen plenty of instances where obvious repercussions or the presence of authority figures has done nothing to calm a person in the middle of a blind rage.

Have you ever had sex? Did you know that it's a biological fact that when a person is aroused their body inhibits their long-term, rational though in favour of promoting short-term satisfaction? Have you ever lost your temper? Can you honestly argue that emotions don't affect your judgement in those cases either?

[Shdo]

so you dont have a case for example? only assumption?

[Rain]

Simple. It should not be. People need to take responsibility for their actions. Everyone knows that killing other human beings is against the law so killing one in the heat of the moment is ludicrous

I agree that in general it shouldn't be a valid defense, but for a different reason

it opens up too many doors and ways out

If a person kills another in the heat of the moment, then it becomes possible for people to kill others in cold blood, and say it was heat of the moment


If there are other factors, like clear evidence of severe emotional trauma, then maybe it should be allowed

[lilsakura]

I agree that in general it shouldn't be a valid defense, but for a different reason

it opens up too many doors and ways out

If a person kills another in the heat of the moment, then it becomes possible for people to kill others in cold blood, and say it was heat of the moment


If there are other factors, like clear evidence of severe emotional trauma, then maybe it should be allowed

Yeah, I completely agree. To say that it was in the heat of the moment is no excuse. Taking human life is a horrid crime and it definitely does leave room for people to make up this excuse even when it isn't the case.

[Rain]

Yeah, I completely agree. To say that it was in the heat of the moment is no excuse. Taking human life is a horrid crime and it definitely does leave room for people to make up this excuse even when it isn't the case.

Yea, I can understand something like self defense, but revenge isn't an excuse

losing youself int eh ehat of the moment is understandable, i can't say i wouldn't be able to control myself, but it shouldn't be an excuse

if it was, it would be widely abused

[♠ Saint ♠]

I'm just talking from personal experience - I've seen plenty of instances where obvious repercussions or the presence of authority figures has done nothing to calm a person in the middle of a blind rage.

Have you ever had sex? Did you know that it's a biological fact that when a person is aroused their body inhibits their long-term, rational though in favour of promoting short-term satisfaction? Have you ever lost your temper? Can you honestly argue that emotions don't affect your judgement in those cases either?

Have you ever had sex? Did you know that when aroused, a woman's pain threshold doubles?

Do you practice self-control? If one knows they have a temper then it is only responsible to try and not let it get the best of them. I truly despise hearing the argument that emotions take people for rides and they have absolutely no control over them. There are exceptions, like hormonal imbalances and things like bipolar disorder that yes, make it difficult to deal with mood swings and emotions.

I feel like I'm painting a target on my head when I say that yes, I am bipolar. I have some really wretched mood swings some days where I find myself angry for absolutely no viable reason. Despite that, I still act like a civilized human being and don't go take it out on someone else. But to your point, yes, I have truly lost my temper a few times and seriously wanted to do some damage. Ah, but in this fury, what did I do? I removed myself from the situation and thought my way through it. Once I calm down, I go back and try to work things out or apologize for something I might have said.

At the same time, I've never shot any of my lovers that cheated on me either.

But to argue my point a little further, please, let us use one of your situations as an example. Cite one for me.

[kiera2]

so you dont have a case for example? only assumption?
I don't know any murderers personally, no. But as I just said, I've seen dozens of cases where the presence of an authority figure hasn't stopped someone in a rage from resorting to violence. Even a case where a police officer was physically trying to restrain one man from attacking another and he still broke free to keep hitting the other guy.

Have you ever had sex? Did you know that when aroused, a woman's pain threshold doubles?
I'm not sure I see the relevance. (And I can't say I've ever spent time testing my pain threshold while having sex :p) My point was that biological factors can affect a person's rational thought process in any number of ways beyond their control. I figured that most people would have experienced how their judgement is impaired while aroused, so I used it as an example. (You know - when you really shouldn't because you'll be late for work...)

I'm really sorry to hear about your illness, by the way. My mum has bipolar, severe type 2, and she has an utterly terrible time of it. But what she goes through, the way that simple chemicals can completely change her whole personality, only go to further show me how fragile our ideas of self (and self-control) are when at the mercy of our internal chemistry. She goes to monthly meetings with other sufferers, and she's always so jealous of people who can retain enough of their normal personality to keep their self-control during an episode. She can't. Her episodes are severe enough that she literally acts like a different person - and afterwards can't understand why on earth she would have wanted to do the things she did.

I personally have no trouble keeping my temper in check - I haven't lost it since I was 15 years old. I'm obsessively controlling when it comes to myself, both physically and mentally. And I'm infinitely grateful for the mental faculties that allow me to be. Because I know some people who, no matter how rational or smart they are in normal circumstances, simply lose it when their anger gets out of control. One of my brothers, for example, has in the past jumped up and down on my laptop (right in front of my parents), thrown a skateboard at my head and given me a nasty concussion, and kicked dozens of holes in the walls of the house. Once he even kicked a plate glass window with his bare foot, and had to have a dozen stitches in his ankle. Anything that can override self-preservation is a pretty powerful force.

[♠ Saint ♠]

I do not consider it an illness, at least in my case. Just a simple matter of coping with different wiring.

But yes! And example. These men were already fighting when a police officer tried to break it up, yes? What incentive is there to stop then? You're already in the commission of stupidity so why let up?

The quote is intended to mean, that if there was a cop in that room, would she still have left the room, went to get the gun, came back, and still shot him? A sane person would not. However, excusing behavior due to extreme emotional disturbance sets a dangerous precedent. Remember how road rage was starting to come to prominence in the mid90's? And later, from that, we got "air rage"? And now, even the bigots have one called "gay panic"? Where do we draw the line between genuine illness and someone unwilling toi take responsibility or wishing for us to pardon their lack thereof?

[kiera2]

I do not consider it an illness, at least in my case. Just a simple matter of coping with different wiring.
Yeah, like I said, there are definitely different degrees - you're lucky not to have a severe case.

But yes! And example. These men were already fighting when a police officer tried to break it up, yes? What incentive is there to stop then? You're already in the commission of stupidity so why let up?
Seriously though - in all honestly - do you really think that all that went through the guy's mind while he was blindly hitting out at everything around him?

Where do we draw the line between genuine illness and someone unwilling toi take responsibility or wishing for us to pardon their lack thereof?
Well, that's the real question. But the law already makes distinctions between manslaughter and murder - and there are plenty of fuzzy, borderline cases in between those two. I don't see how letting a jury make a judgement call about a murderer's intention is any different to letting them make judgement calls about the intentions behind other crimes.

[♠ Saint ♠]

Yeah, like I said, there are definitely different degrees - you're lucky not to have a severe case.


Seriously though - in all honestly - do you really think that all that went through the guy's mind while he was blindly hitting out at everything around him?


Well, that's the real question. But the law already makes distinctions between manslaughter and murder - and there are plenty of fuzzy, borderline cases in between those two. I don't see how letting a jury make a judgement call about a murderer's intention is any different to letting them make judgement calls about the intentions behind other crimes.

Example. A friend of mine told me a story about someone he knew who was attacked by a young punk trying to rob him one night on his way back from the bar. The friend is a trained martial artist but misjudged his initial throw (from being a little drunk himself) and ended up internally decpitating and killing the guy. He wound up with a laceration on his arm from the robber's knife. The friend called 911 and reported the incident immediately and turned himself in without a fight. Come the trial, he's stright up about it and the charges are reduced from third degree murder to manslaughter. Sentencing rolls around and he gets the minimum. Why? It was a genuine accident.

Juries, I might add, can be easily swayed, depending on the group of "peers" that get to sit on that trial. Hell, I don;t even have faith in some judges to do the right thing. I heard of a case in Miami where a woman had a restrainign order against her ex-boyfriend. The ex got out of jail and a few days later, brutally beat and raped her, then tried to kill her by making her drink battery acid. She lost vision in one eye and had partial vision in another and surgeons took a portion of her intestine to replace the remnants of her esophagus. Not to mention the facial reconstruction surgery. What does the jury rule? 4 years. The judge admonishes them and sentences the ex to 2 years with possibility of parole after 10 months. Why? She didn't think that the victim's quality of life was effected badly.

Heh, the person I heard this from is a prosecutor in that office (we are food lovers and have a shared passion in culinary excellence). He said that after that, that particular judge got soooo many death threats. Obviously in the second example, that is someone who needs to be put away.

[kiera2]

Yes, the jury system is imperfect and judges make mistakes. They're all biased humans like the rest of us. But until we invent a device for reading minds I'm not sure what alternative there is.

[Fyrefox]

Simple. Become unbiased. It's not nearly as hard as you may think it is.

[kiera2]

Simple. Become unbiased. It's not nearly as hard as you may think it is.
It's not hard, it's impossible. Everyone has bias.

[Rain]

:lmao i really can't take that seriously

riding yourself of bias is virtually impossible, and even if you think you have none, that just means you aren't aware of it

I think its easier and better for jurors to accept the bias, and focus on whether their bias is a factor or not, and if it is at all, then vote not guilty, because they are clearly unable to judge properly

[Shdo]

there is no reason to care about the bias anyway, if you murdered some1 it dosnt matter if it was in a feat of rage, passion, envy, calculated intention or sadistic whim, the fact is that you had intention at one point or the other, there is either manslaughter or murder.

[Rain]

Shdo- thats true, but bias can be important in determining that

If there isn't enough evidence, a biased persn might be more likely to conclude it was a murder in col blood rather self defense for example

Or bias might make you fill in gaps that the evidence hasn't fully filled


and its also the people who choose how long the person must serve (within a set range) that more biased people might give more years than what the person really deserves

[Shdo]

there shouldnt be any problems with the serving time, it should be either a life sentence or death penalty according to the country.