• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Time to Kill

Guilty or Innocent?

  • Total voters
    11

RightOfCenter

Dangerous Spinmaster
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2005
Messages
4,736
Reaction score
824
Location
South Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A poll for those of you who have read the book by John Grisham or seen the movie starring Matthew McConaghy and Samuel L. Jackson. I don't really feel like explaining the plot, so check it out here: A Time to Kill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are a juror on murder case of Carl Lee Halley. Is he guilty?

Please elaborate on your choice.
 

Yes, he's guilty. Vigilante justice is still murder.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, he's guilty. Vigilante justice is still murder.
Click to expand...

[Scratches chin] Yeah, it's murder. The need for vigilante justice is sorta what differentiates civilization from anarchy. Of course, that opens up another can of worms altogether: are we civilized?
 
Definitely guilty. It is not a right to take the law and justice into your own hands unless there is clear imminent and immediate threat.
 
Kandahar said:
Yes, he's guilty. Vigilante justice is still murder.
Click to expand...
Under most circumstances I would tend to agree. This story however dealt with the fact that justice had a slim chance of being served towards the Haley Family for the rape of his little girl, I would have to say that the system failed and so he did the unspeakable to right a wrong, I would say that most of us would do the same thing if we were in Carl Lee's shoes.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This story however dealt with the fact that justice had a slim chance of being served towards the Haley Family for the rape of his little girl...
Click to expand...

Which is why I asked if we were truly civilized. Wouldn't a civilized society see to it that justice was served?
 

Ya, you're probably right. Even though he's guilty, I would hope that he wouldn't get the harshest sentence possible.
 
I think there is times when its justifiable to kill someone however the law isnt always fair the law can only go on evidence in a fair society if there isnt enough evidence justice just will not be done in many cases.

He is guilty because i guess this is one occassion when i think the slippery slope arguement is actually valid.
 

Innocent by reason of temporary insanity.
 
---
I don't have time to read it but i'm sure the answer is GUILTY!!!
 
Guilty. If the men weren't proven guilty, then why do we assume that they actually committed the crime? In real life you don't get to see what really happened, unlike the book/movie.

That said, certain circumstances might dictate that I would take actions outside the law. However, I wouldn't expect to be let off if I was caught either.
 
Adrian said:
Which is why I asked if we were truly civilized. Wouldn't a civilized society see to it that justice was served?
Click to expand...
I think that we are certainly civilized, but sometimes even the most civilized society has a glitch, i.e. criminals who victimize the innocent. When the system has to deal with a criminal, I think our concept of the criminal justice system leads us to trust those in authority to civilly distribute justice, "A Time to Kill" dealt with the potential of the system failing through process and the fact that sometimes we let our prejudices contribute to said failure. I guess in summation we could say that yes we are civilized, but at some moments we could be better.
 
Hatuey said:
I concur. I'd go the same way as him. Anybody touches my kid. They'd be on the wrong end of a gun 10 minutes after I find out.
Click to expand...


I completely concur... justifiable homicide...

I saw the movie & read the book, as usual, the book was better than the movie...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Innocent by reason of temporary insanity.
Click to expand...

Innocent...TOT said it best.

We are talking about what someone did to your child.

I couldn’t be sadistic enough to the people or person.
 
Hatuey said:
I concur. I'd go the same way as him. Anybody touches my kid. They'd be on the wrong end of a gun 10 minutes after I find out.
Click to expand...

You and me both..
However I might forego the weapons for the use of
bare hands to rip their world apart. But the end result would still be the same...
 
I agree with TOT, Hatuey, reaganburch, and cherokee.

Innocent. Temporary insanity due to a devastating emotional trauma.
 
if these are your convictions
should you not turn yourself in, immediately after killing the person?
 
In a state of law he is guilty, but in my opinion he did exactly what I would do. You lay hands on my kid and I will have your throat. If it sends me in jail, so be it, I'll be a happy man.
 
if these are your convictions
should you not turn yourself in, immediately after killing the person?
Click to expand...

No. Whatever sort of extreme circumstances would cause me to commit such actions would mean that the law could not handle the situation. My point is that making such a choice means accepting the consequences of your actions.

And why has nobody addressed my point that in real life, you never actually get to know what really happened?
 

I think that what he did was a slap in the face of Justice. We have a legal system in place with adversarial mechanisms to make it fair for both the prosecution and the defense.

Our legal code is the highest authority in adjudicating criminal proceedings. If the men were acquitted or given a lesser charge, it is not the right of any one man (angry father of the victim or no) to override our justice system on his own discretion and kill two other men who had been tested by our law and found not guilty. Vigilante justice is not acceptable in any circumstance. Ever.
 

Sorry for playing Devil's Advocate, but wonder if you saw the said perpetrator do a heinous act to, let's say, your daughter? Obviously you would go to jail for killing the man, but would you find that somewhat justifiable? I know personally if I knew without a doubt that someone had hurt my little girl (or boy), and by some bullshit technicality or amazing defense attorney the guy got off, I would take matters into my own hands.

Like I said, I'm not saying legally that it wouldn't go unpunished, but I would be satisfied in my own mind. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I just don't think I could let someone I knew who was guiltly of a crime committed against someone in my family walk free.
 
There's not many jury's that would convict a person after something like that. That would make any father legally insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…