Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Should the crime of murder carry a staute of limitations of 25 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest im not witty Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 tough one. depends on whether i killed someone or someone killed my friend. but doesnt it always. i say yea though. if you can get away with it for that long...the running scared lifestyle is enough punishment for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dyptheria Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 no. depends on the individual case. if some fool raped my girlfriend, it might drive me nuts to kill him...i shouldn't receive the same sentence for some idiot who killed someone for a monetary benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Author Share Posted June 20, 2002 ah, but doesn't a good murder also include a good 'dump'? So, the best murderers will be able to kill, dump the body, and continue living as if nothing has changed? Of course, if you keep killing people it might be argued as a 'continuous crime' under the serial killing defenitions, so nobody could expect to log a big tally, but... just a hypothetical... say some 18 year old kid is in a bad place in his life, maybe dealing or something, and this leads to the direct murder of 3 or 4 people in one night, but that fucks him up and he changes his ways... spends 50 years as a ham 'n egger and just toes the line... then when he's 68, evidence comes out that directly implicates him, should he die in prison? Should he get some credit for living a clean life for 50 years after the fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Author Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Dyptheria no. depends on the individual case. if some fool raped my girlfriend, it might drive me nuts to kill him...i shouldn't receive the same sentence for some idiot who killed someone for a monetary benefit actually, a good 'revenge;' defense was fully acceptable under Italian law from the middle ages until Musolinni took over... that's another issue, but one that we could also explore... so, now, it's 2 questions: Should Murder carry for 25 years? Is revenge a plausible defense for murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyHorton Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 revenge doesn't work unless you go eye for an eye... and even then i don't think it would work... i definately think the life sentence is more plausible than capital punishment though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Author Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by JohnnyHorton i definately think the life sentence is more plausible than capital punishment though this isn't about the punishment phase at all... the first question is about the liability phase and the secong question speaks to motive... let's leave punishment for another discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dyptheria Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 1. i don't believe in mandatory sentences for crimes. We have judges that do this. A judge makes decisions with consideration to the circumstances of the convict and the crime. A blanket law wouldn't leave any leeway. 2. i believe that there is a temporary insanity plea. essentially the plea is based on the fact that the person wouldn't commit the crime under normal circumstances, but some situation caused irrational thinking. revenge could fall under this category. recall the bobbit case in the early nineties. Just my opinions. i'm open minded: if you make a good argument, i'll change my mind. i'm also open to expand on other scenarios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Author Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Dyptheria 1. i don't believe in mandatory sentences for crimes goddamnit! didn't I JUST say this isn't about the punishment phase? If you need to look up "Statute of Limitations" I'll understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dyptheria Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 oh, hehe, i know what you mean...hence the scenario you proposed of the 68 year old guy. gotta think about this one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dyptheria Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 i think everyone guilty of a violent crime needs to be brought to justice, regardless of how laong ago it was. it is at that point that a judge and jury can decide. the defendant may bring many character witnesses to show that they are now a good person. so maybe sentencing may be drastically reduced, but i think those close to the victim would like to see some from of restitution. if somone killed my dad 26 years ago, i don't care what kind of upstanding citizen he/she is, they're going to have some of their life taken from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Author Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Dyptheria if somone killed my dad 26 years ago, i don't care what kind of upstanding citizen he/she is, they're going to have some of their life taken from them is this not justification for a 'revenge' defense though? and, then, you only killed them because they killed your dad, so, if you can get away with it for 25 years... I mean, if you got an airtight revenge, would you fuck that up by shoplifting or killing other people? Especially if you're a good person that got a screw job from fate, espescially if you live a good life until you find out who killed your pops, then you get them and then you cover it up for another 25 years... ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dyptheria Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 err... what i meant by some life taken from them was time taken away, say five years in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted June 20, 2002 Author Share Posted June 20, 2002 so, basically, your position is that every murder deserves 'government justice', as opposed to revenge killing or something, so I'm gonna put you down under the '99 year staute' column, please correct me if I'm wrongly characterizing your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dyptheria Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 another question, this one about punishment... scenario one: someone kills my dad, i have to take care of five younger siblings, essentially stripped of any opportunity for college or someother persuit of my own life. all kids are raised 25 years later, and i know i would have went to medical school and be making 6 figures, but i was stuck earning minimum wage and working overtime to support five kids when i was at the age of 18. someone is convicted of the murder. the person is a wealthy businessman who is good and earns a decent living. scenario two: same as scenario one, except the person responsible for the crime became a monk, and dedicated their whole life to providing basic necessities and medicine to those starving and dying in third world countries. would you feel that the person in scenario two has served humanity in a way that would probobly exceed the amount of sacrifice i had to make and whould therefore receive less punishment than the person in scenario one? i dunno where i'm going with this... just thinking, thats all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ctrl+alt+del Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by JohnnyHorton eye for an eye... this is an extremely ancient idea, i beleive it was first put into writing by Hammurabi in his book of code. Im a bit rusty in my history, he was either an Egyptian ruler or a Babylonian ruler.... but then again this has nothing to do with this thread. just a bit of info, thought ya might be interested Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest imported_Tesseract Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 The whole thing is beyond justice in a way...seriously how many people kill...just for once and live as 'good' in their rest of their lives?...I mean this is totally theoritical...Laws are moslty meant to deal with Criminals, that do crime all the time, i remember a story that is irrelevant to this but has a point...a junkie was caught dealing, after that he changed and lived a clean hardworkin life...after 6 years or so, he's case got on trial...he faced prison. Everyone was somehow upset that this kid who did a huge effort to stay clean should go to prison where he would seriously get fucked uped and lose any motivation to stay clean....i dunno i believe in laws in a way...still everygeneral thing has exeptions and casualties...i guess its like when a really good kid and a generaly good driver does a stupid move behind the wheel and ends up dead while others dont get a scratch...bad fuckin luck.. so, now, it's 2 questions: Should Murder carry for 25 years? Yeah, because non punishment leads to the state where revenge is plausible defense for murder...and on and on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 no....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remi Martin Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Smart ah, but doesn't a good murder also include a good 'dump'? So, the best murderers will be able to kill, dump the body, and continue living as if nothing has changed? Of course, if you keep killing people it might be argued as a 'continuous crime' under the serial killing defenitions, so nobody could expect to log a big tally, but... just a hypothetical... *in san francisco somthing like 60% of murders go unsolved, its literally the easiest place in the country to kills someone and get away with it....so that shit does happen on the regular round these parts. say some 18 year old kid is in a bad place in his life, maybe dealing or something, and this leads to the direct murder of 3 or 4 people in one night, but that fucks him up and he changes his ways... spends 50 years as a ham 'n egger and just toes the line... then when he's 68, evidence comes out that directly implicates him, should he die in prison? Should he get some credit for living a clean life for 50 years after the fact? *just pop a cap in him and forget about the old fart, i dont give a fuck if you live clean, im on that whole eye for a eye shit, or a miserable life behind bars. Chaka got a stiffer sentence than the people who murdered my freind, call me a bit bitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 tell it to the mother who has waited 45 years to find the person who murdered a son or daughter of hers..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest --zeSto-- Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 here's the fault in this whole discussion... The failure to adress the types of muder. 1st degree - premediated murder 2nd degree - crime of passion ( the whole revenge thing) 3rd degree - negligent manslaughter Not all murders are equal. And not all muders are violent. whatever happened to a good old poisoning ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canadiano Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 does anyone know where I could find a very good, concise book on the history of midieval europe? Nothing that will take over a year to read...you, know - concise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Canadiano Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 with maps of lands controlled by whoever (muslims, christians, etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dot. Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 poison should be less than 10 based on effort. as zesto broke down...there are many types of murder... but how can it resolve itself, when countries that win wars (ie. have slaughtered thousands of people [intentionally]) very rarely come under fire for war crimes or crimes against humanity...and it is often those same countries that dictate/persuade criminal codes abroad. i guess i don't know how long a life is worth...thus the euthanasia debate... but it certainly strikes me as odd that govt can train people to kill, and that's okay, even reward the murderers w/ medal and raises etc...but some people are in for life for a knife fight gone wrong? as the saying goes, "only poor people serve time" there's some truth to it i think. -dot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fr8oholic Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Smart Should the crime of murder carry a staute of limitations of 25 years? nope, i like it just the way it is here, no statute of limitations on murder. criminal mischief or conspiracy to commit criminal mischief can get shorter if you follow me but to hell with out waiting murder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dot. Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Canadiano does anyone know where I could find a very good, concise book on the history of midieval europe? Nothing that will take over a year to read...you, know - concise. try the following: voltaire's bastards (not a concise history, but an interesting explanation) by john raulston saul The discoveres: a history of man's search to know his world, by Daniel J. Boorstin (explores how we have time, calenders, etc...basically a history of technology as it evolved around the world) both are good reads. or Medieval Europeans: Studies in Ethnic Identity and National Perspectives in Medieval Europe by Alfred p. Smyth -dot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Are2 Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 Originally posted by Smart Should the crime of murder carry a staute of limitations of 25 years? nope...i think Moxley is enough for this one... and if not, i think of my own family.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 are2 thats the exact case i was thinking of....if you saw the face of the mother then you know.... but that brings up a interesting case: what if you commit a murder while there is a statue of limitations? that will be one of mickey shermans main arguements in appeal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest --zeSto-- Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 what if I someone isn't posting the weekly Rob.... can I murder them ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mental invalid Posted June 20, 2002 Share Posted June 20, 2002 :lol::lol: :lol: not i said the wolf...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.