Sympathizing with a Killer

[Mling]

I absolutely sympathize with the guy, but...it's still murder. Knocking the guy out would have done the job.

 

[Joachim]

Yes, I can sympathize with his reaction.

If I was on the jury, and the evidence supported it, then yes, I would say he is guilty of pre-meditated murder. Jurors are asked to determine whether he is guilty, not to determine whether the law is fair or not.

I don't think the "spirit" of the law agrees either, because the law doesn't really encourage vigilantes.

As far as sentencing is concerned, I think it would be fair to give him a slightly reduced sentence, but he still committed pre-medicated murder.

I take it you don't believe in jury nullification then?

I for one do. I believe this is a case for it. Even if you argue he should be convicted of something, it should not be capital murder or life in prison. I am probably the staunchest death penalty defender on this site and I could not give this guy a capital sentence, and I'm someone who supports the death penalty for crimes in which no homicide occurs.

I'll ask a question related to this example.


I am sure everyone has seen A Time To Kill or read the book. For those who haven't, here is the back story:

Two white racists kidnap a black girl, rape her, beat her to near death and leave her for dead. The father, gets a hold of the an M-16 and blows both rapists away on the steps of the courthouse. The crux of the story then revolves around the case, because this is Mississippi, and it being Mississippi, if it had been a white father who had killed two white rapists, he'd get off, a black father killing black rapists same thing, and a white father killing black rapists the same thing. The plot turn comes because this is a black man killing two whites in Mississippi. Well, a whole bunch of stuff happens, it looks like Carl Lee will be found guilty and then the attorney Brigance makes the argument to imagine the circumstances of the case, imagine if it was your daughter who had been raped, and then vote accordingly.


Carl Lee gets aquitted. According to the law of Mississippi, he definitely deserves the gas chamber, but the jury exercises its discretion for jury nullification and renders a non-guilty verdict, knowing full well under the law he is guilty. They do it because they'd do the same thing.


I think this is related and so I will bring it up. How would you have voted if you were on the "Time to Kill" jury. I'll already tell you how I would have voted. I would definitely vote to acquit and if I held a public office of any kind, I'd be proposing a measure to give this guy a public medal. I'd be interested in how others would act, considering the complete and total condemnation of the hunter killing another hunter.


And just to clarify, I am in no way defending Tiller's killer. Tiller's killer needs to executed and as for the hunter, the hunter probably does deserve a manslaughter charge but not first degree murder.

 

[Penumbra]

I take it you don't believe in jury nullification then?

I for one do. I believe this is a case for it. Even if you argue he should be convicted of something, it should not be capital murder or life in prison. I am probably the staunchest death penalty defender on this site and I could not give this guy a capital sentence, and I'm someone who supports the death penalty for crimes in which no homicide occurs.

Actually, I was unfamiliar with jury nullification. I'm not all that knowledgeable about court process; maybe I should watch Law and Order more.

I don't know enough about it form an opinion.

I'll ask a question related to this example.

I am sure everyone has seen A Time To Kill or read the book. For those who haven't, here is the back story:

Two white racists kidnap a black girl, rape her, beat her to near death and leave her for dead. The father, gets a hold of the an M-16 and blows both rapists away on the steps of the courthouse. The crux of the story then revolves around the case, because this is Mississippi, and it being Mississippi, if it had been a white father who had killed two white rapists, he'd get off, a black father killing black rapists same thing, and a white father killing black rapists the same thing. The plot turn comes because this is a black man killing two whites in Mississippi. Well, a whole bunch of stuff happens, it looks like Carl Lee will be found guilty and then the attorney Brigance makes the argument to imagine the circumstances of the case, imagine if it was your daughter who had been raped, and then vote accordingly.

Carl Lee gets aquitted. According to the law of Mississippi, he definitely deserves the gas chamber, but the jury exercises its discretion for jury nullification and renders a non-guilty verdict, knowing full well under the law he is guilty. They do it because they'd do the same thing.

I think this is related and so I will bring it up. How would you have voted if you were on the "Time to Kill" jury. I'll already tell you how I would have voted. I would definitely vote to acquit and if I held a public office of any kind, I'd be proposing a measure to give this guy a public medal. I'd be interested in how others would act, considering the complete and total condemnation of the hunter killing another hunter.

My question is- does this situation occur in modern Mississippi or in Mississippi decades ago? In modern Mississippi, if such a thing occurred, I think the black man would have a much better shot at getting the rapists convicted, because even if the locals are racist, he can appeal to higher courts. In earlier times in Mississippi, he would have far less options.

My honest answer is that I probably wouldn't get selected to be on any of these types of juries because the prosecuting team wouldn't want me on it. My emotions would override my ability to read and follow the law. My theoretical stance is that the law can't allow vigilantes, but my emotional response would be that the father is justified, and that the hunter is somewhat justified (though he had more options).

And just to clarify, I am in no way defending Tiller's killer. Tiller's killer needs to executed and as for the hunter, the hunter probably does deserve a manslaughter charge but not first degree murder.

Why so different penalties?

This reminds me of the movie "Righteous Kill" where a police officer goes around murdering rapists and murderers that were found not guilty based on technicalities or lies.

 

[Jade Margery]

All three mentioned cases--Tiller's killing, A Time to Kill, and the hypothetical hunter scenario, have very different circumstances and need different outcomes. I do not think that any of them can be compared to each other besides superficial similarities.

The only thing they have in common is that a citizen is taking it upon him-(or her-)self to carry out some kind of 'justice' based on their own perspective.

In Tiller's case, it is someone who has a problem with a man doing a legal procedure with people who volunteer and consent to it.

In 'A Time to Kill', a family member and dependent was wronged and the action was only considered to be worthy of death because of the race of the man who took it; if the laws had been equally applied at the time, it would not have made the outcome so astonishing.

In the hypothetical, a man assumes that he knows someone has broken the law and kills him when he cannot convince other people that the law has been broken.

All of these cases have different motives, different time periods, different backgrounds, and should have different outcomes. There's no across the board answer for this one.

 

[flicka]

The unborn vs people who are already here....can't see the similarities. Especially when those unborn were doomed anyway.

 

[peadar1987]

Slightly off-topic, but if someone had a mental impairment that reduced their intelligence to less than that of say, a deer, or a moose, would it be be moral to kill them for sport?

 

[ragarth]

Slightly off-topic, but if someone had a mental impairment that reduced their intelligence to less than that of say, a deer, or a moose, would it be be moral to kill them for sport?

Considering I don't believe in killing for sport, no. At best you can make a case for killing for food, and eating human meat carries with it the risk of prions and other cannibalistic diseases, so this would still be a no.

 

[Tenka]

Knocking the guy out would have done the job.

For how long? Are you going to keep him incapacitated forever? As soon as you let him go he is free to kill kids again and the authorities are not interested in stopping him.

 

[keith99]

For the hypothetical hunter it looks like a case where one of the usual sport hunters rules has to be reversed. Normally sitting at a salt lick and waiting teh a deer to come there is bad form (at the least). But in this case the next kid is the salt lick and the other hunter is the dear (or perhaps mountian lion).

If our hypothetical hunter stakes out the next kid in line and does not act until the kid is in direct danger no problem, acquital, it is defense.

But is he goes out hunting then guilty.

 

[quatona]

Can you sympathize with his reaction?

Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. I certainly can sympathize with incompetence.

If you were on the jury, and had to say guilty or not, which would you?

Guilty.

Does it matter if he was breaking a law,

If I were on the jury it would be all that matters.

does the 'spirit' of the law agree with this guy, even if the 'word' of the law does not?

I don´t know that there´s a "spirit" of laws. Maybe you mean the way I personally would like to bend the law to make it fit my preferences?

 

[Shane Roach]

Well, the actual case of Tiller is an example of how you simply cannot use the law to try to control morality. Law is supposed to reflect existing morality, not change it. There is currently absolutely no sensible policy on abortion. If someone believes Abortion is murder, that belief is going to prey on their mind daily, and in some cases this outcome is predictable. There is no legitimate outlet for the concern currently. It is a dead end fight until Roe V. Wade is overturned, and the chances of that happening seem bleak.

If you were a guard at a Nazi death camp, would it be immoral of you to kill fellow guards and help prisoners escape simply because it was illegal?

This is a problem of perspective, and how we are being led further and further down a road where there simply cannot be a live and let live attitude. Certain sets of values are simply mutually exclusive, and at some point a society pressed to defend every freedom will lose them all.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the governed.

 

[fated]

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the governed.

If we met this criteria, the voices on either side would be quieted significantly.

Just saying.

ALTHOUGH, the trend seems to be that the sides are expanding, especially the pro-life side, as in the deep pro-life, no abortion at all side. So, you could say it would only be a temporary measure before something dramatic happened.

 

[heavensblade23]

This is a problem of perspective, and how we are being led further and further down a road where there simply cannot be a live and let live attitude. Certain sets of values are simply mutually exclusive, and at some point a society pressed to defend every freedom will lose them all.

The law is supposed to reflect the will of the governed.

It does, polls have consistently shown that people favor abortion being legal in some or all circumstances when asked whether it should be legal all of the time, some of the time, or none of the time.

Don't overestimate the penetration of your own ideas.

 

[heavensblade23]

ALTHOUGH, the trend seems to be that the sides are expanding, especially the pro-life side, as in the deep pro-life, no abortion at all side. So, you could say it would only be a temporary measure before something dramatic happened.

The numbers of people who identify as pro-life are mainly changing among Republicans. Democratic support for legal abortion is about the same as it's always been.

 

[heavensblade23]

I take it you don't believe in jury nullification then?

I only believe in jury nullification when the crime is victimless or the prosecution overzealous. I put premeditated murder in the same category as rape...I don't really care what the circumstance was, you do not plan and execute that crime and get away with it.

 

[Shane Roach]

It does, polls have consistently shown that people favor abortion being legal in some or all circumstances when asked whether it should be legal all of the time, some of the time, or none of the time.

Don't overestimate the penetration of your own ideas.

I'm not an abortion banner.

Recent polls show a change in how people self identify. The partial birth abortion issue has attached itself to "choice" and for the first time since I believe Roe V. Wade itself, 51% call themselves pro life.

Those of us who are not at the extremes do not get a label of our own....

 

[fated]

The numbers of people who identify as pro-life are mainly changing among Republicans. Democratic support for legal abortion is about the same as it's always been.

Yes... thus, it seems to be a problem of educating people on the subject, having a public debate, and settling the issue. Pro-life people are frustrated by their inability to present their case, including visual aids, to the public using the typical means, such as broadcast news, that resists having such a discussion.

Actually, this isn't even that clear as to why... because 5% or more... possibly significantly more are pro-life democrat Catholics, who would probably like to see such a thing. I would say a large portion of the democratic party would like to see such coverage, although possibly not enough, or influential enough to overcome the de facto censorship.

 

[Shane Roach]

The numbers of people who identify as pro-life are mainly changing among Republicans. Democratic support for legal abortion is about the same as it's always been.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a whole lot of support for the wholesale ban. That was the supposed motivation behind Roe V. Wade, but they vastly overreached. Had they made a wiser decision, I would look back on it as much like the New Deal -- crappy, possibly unnecessary, but easily understood and absolutely understandable. Something needed to be done about the greed crippling the economy.

If it were well crafted, it might have even risen to the level of the "Three-Fifths Compromise" -- Utterly immoral, but necessary for progress away from an even more destructive current situation.

 

[heavensblade23]

Yes... thus, it seems to be a problem of educating people on the subject, having a public debate, and settling the issue. Pro-life people are frustrated by their inability to present their case, including visual aids, to the public using the typical means, such as broadcast news, that resists having such a discussion.

Sane people, by and large, do not want to view large graphic displays in public. I don't want to look at an aborted fetus, or a crime scene photo, or explicit sexual content when I'm driving to McDonalds.

The fact that the media doesn't cover the topic says a few things to me: It's pointless, because people are largely entrenched in their position, the discussion has been done to death, and the news never covers controversy with the depth it requires anyway.

 

[Shane Roach]

Sane people, by and large, do not want to view large graphic displays in public. I don't want to look at an aborted fetus, or a crime scene photo, or explicit sexual content when I'm driving to McDonalds.

The fact that the media doesn't cover the topic says a few things to me: It's pointless, because people are largely entrenched in their position, the discussion has been done to death, and the news never covers controversy with the depth it requires anyway.

Interestingly, bloody murder and sex in public are both illegal, and while I think your point might be along the lines of not wanting to see an appendectomy or open heart surgery either, the fact is that socialists have also attempted to censor this information going out to the very patients themselves, which is inexcusable.