An Eye For An Eye?
Does a man deserve to live after he had purposely and intentionally killed another man? I hear this nonsense all the time about his constitutional right to live but what about the rights of the person he had killed?
I believe that every person has the right to live and therefore has the right to defend his own life; or the life of another, providing that he does not use excessive force.
Killing somebody by negligence and/or recklessness should be heavily punished according to the circumstances. We cannot claim an accident if we were reckless or negligent.
I don’t believe that crimes of passion or things done on the spur of the moment are any different than any other crime. If you have intended to kill at the time, you should pay for that crime.
To me attempted murder is no different than murder. Doing a bad job is no mitigation. It is the intent that matters; not the result.
No, I don’t think a man deserves the right to live if he had willfully killed another; no matter what the reason. He had forfeited that right when he took it away from another.
May you have a wonderful Wednesday.
Comments (120)
So say I too. take the whole bock and tackle.
Yes, or banks are robbed using AK47s. A legacy from the illegal weapon ANC arms caches during the apartheid years. There is no telling how many are still around.
Often the only capital involved is the bit of money the victim had in his pocket. People are killed for the price of a bottle of beer.
while, I dont know if you know. but an AK47. is a very strong and reliable weapon. you can put it underneath the ground, and it will hardly rust.
also, quite light.
Ok, havent tried out the modern weapons.
Often they are not satisfied with what you have to give. Killing had become part of the culture. A dead man cannot identify you later.
now, they shoot you dead, just for fun.
those m16s are horrible. they rip half your body apart.
dont want to think what a m60 can do.
Here a life is worth much less. People are killed for much less.
Six months ago a woman stabbed and killed her husband after an argument while he was asleep. She had enough time to think about her deed. It was not spur of the moment. Yet she is walking around as if nothing happened and it probably won't even go to trial.
There is nothing I can add to your comment; I can only endorse it.
In some countries, someone could still be stoned to death if they suspect they're dishonoring their family...honor killings! A very very sensitive issue but people talk that it is still happening, the murderer gets away for protecting 'family's honor' doh:
Ironic but true. I always thought the law was to protect the victims and the innocent but is seems that it was designed to protect the criminals.
There I agree. The key is proven guilt. You cannot execute a man on a verdict of beyond reasonable doubt.
Exactly, not what prevents him from getting another anxiety attack and shoot another girlfriend?
I don't know the particulars of the case but I can tell you the were both drunk.
Yes, I thought about it a lot. In fact, when you live in a country where almost sixty murders are committed every day, as I live in, there is very little else you think of.
And yes, I have raised two daughters but I fail to see how it relates to this blog other than that they are also potential victims.
Look at it this way.
Case one.
A guy shoots his victim with the intend to kill but unknowingly only wounds him seriously and him and leave him to die. But the person does not die and identifies his assailant.
Case 2
A guy plans to murder somebody and goes about doing it but the gun misfires when he tries to execute his victim. He is the overpowered by bystanders.
In both cases there was the intent and the attempt to murder. They should be tried for murder. Doing a bad job is not mitigation. He tried to kill somebody and if not taken out of society is capable of doing it again.
Our jails are overfull and even convicted murderers are back on the street within two or three years.
And how do you tell the difference between the evil and the insane. We all have a bit of insanity in us.
I was taught not to take a firearm out if you are not going to use it. And if shooting in the leg is enough then your life was not in danger and the gun was not needed in the first place. However, if your life is in danger then a second in the chest makes perfectly sense.
That is exactly where I was taught that. In the military, but I was not in the Military Police.
I wont make so much noise. I will let them believe it is save. Otherwise the come back when I'm not there.
I do think an eye for eye is appropriate but I think if the death is accidental then a little leeway must be given.
Hope you had a great day!
For sure. If it was purely accidental with no negligence or recklessness he should not be punished at all. And if he was negligent or reckless then he should be punished according to the degree of it. However, if the intent was to kill there should be no mercy. Whether it was premeditated or not.
Yes that is true. Happy you agree!
My beef is with people who kill people on purpose or by gross negligence or recklessness.
Sometimes the victim in a homicide is the cause of his own death. Like in hunting accidents when the victim is not where he should be or a drunk person just walking straight if front of your car leaving you no time to stop.
Here they are so arrogant the always come back. You have to stop them first time.
Love that sign!
There are many evil people on this planet who don't not deserve to be walking around freely but that is the system we live in. A legal system that is an advantage to the criminals in stead of the victims.