• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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.

Murderers

Is there a difference?

  • Be lenient with the surprised husband, he's probably not in his normal state of mind.

    Votes: 10 83.3%
  • Equal crimes, equal punishments

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • I don't know.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I had a brief discussion about this type of thing with a gentlemen in another thread.

Is there a difference in your eyes between a man who holds up a convenience store and murders the clerk and a man who murders his wife's suitor after he walks in on them?

We had a similiar dialogue about the difference between killing a child and killing an adult.

Is murder murder and always a single degree of such a thing? Does the man who witnesses his wife's adultery get any sympathy/mercy/understanding at all from you or is he the same as the asshole that held up the convenience store and put a bullet in the clerk after he handed over the money?

We report, you decide.
 

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The law recognizes different degrees of murder for a reason - and you, in your conversation, stumbled upon it.

The guy that held up the convenience store would be charged with 1st or (more likely) second degree murder, whereas the husband, assuming it happened immediately upn the find, would likely be charged wit voluntary (maybe involunsary) manslaughter.

2nd degree murder usually means the chair or life in prison, possibly w/ parole.
Involuntary manslaughter varies, but is (obviously) much less.
 
Last edited:

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Yes there is a difference. Someone like the man who murders his wife's suitor isn't a threat to society because it was a spontaneous action triggered by his anger at the moment. He should be jailed, of course, but he shouldn't be fried.
 

George_Washington

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2005
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
0
Location
United States of America and proud of it!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gandhi>Bush said:
I had a brief discussion about this type of thing with a gentlemen in another thread.

Is there a difference in your eyes between a man who holds up a convenience store and murders the clerk and a man who murders his wife's suitor after he walks in on them?

We had a similiar dialogue about the difference between killing a child and killing an adult.

Is murder murder and always a single degree of such a thing? Does the man who witnesses his wife's adultery get any sympathy/mercy/understanding at all from you or is he the same as the asshole that held up the convenience store and put a bullet in the clerk after he handed over the money?

We report, you decide.

No, I don't believe there is a difference in murder no matter what, unless murder is in self defense. But as far as adultery is concerned, we wouldn't have to worry about people killing over it if we would just make it a crime.

Actually though, I do think each case should be observed individually. I think it should be considered how young the person committing murder is and what his motives were. I'm not saying I think that young people should totally get off but I think we should take into consideration his criminal history, any history of mental illness, if he had been harrassed for a long time, etc.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hmmmmm....a husband gets sick at work and goes home early, to find the cable-guy riding his wife for all she's worth. He freaks out, grabs the cuckold's head, and breaks his neck.

A husband finds a new chickie, but the old hen is in the way. He spends three months engineering the means to kill the old lady and dispose of the body effectively.

Nooo, I can't see any difference there.

A man pops out of a dark doorway and physically assaults your wife in front of you. You crush his larynx with a single blow and he chokes to death before the paramedics arrive.

A man pops out of a dark doorway and verbally assaults your wife in front of you. You crush his larynx with a single blow and he chokes to death before the paramedics arrive.

Nooo, I can't see any difference there.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
Yes there is a difference. Someone like the man who murders his wife's suitor isn't a threat to society because it was a spontaneous action triggered by his anger at the moment. He should be jailed, of course, but he shouldn't be fried.
Erm, I've had some nasty and emotional shocks in my life (as we all have) but haven't murdered anyone. If he can't control his anger this time, who says he'll be able to control it if someone runs over his dog, or fires him from his job?

Not that I agree with capital punishment in any circumstances.
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What I don't understand is...why is the husband killing the suitor? The poor guy may not have known the wife was married?

The husband killed the wrong person.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Erm, I've had some nasty and emotional shocks in my life (as we all have) but haven't murdered anyone. If he can't control his anger this time, who says he'll be able to control it if someone runs over his dog, or fires him from his job?
That's something that anger management therapy could solve. After he's served his term, he is unlikely to be a threat to society anymore.
 

Gandhi>Bush

Non-Passive Pascifist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
2,742
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesquite, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Hoot said:
What I don't understand is...why is the husband killing the suitor? The poor guy may not have known the wife was married?

The husband killed the wrong person.
Fine, just for you he kills his wife. In this heated moment, is he in a state of adequate cognitive capacity that he fully realizes and considers the moral and societal consequences of his actions?
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I fail to see the recognition of your spouse's adultery as a reasonable excuse for homicide. You have to already harbor homicidal tendencies to kill someone out of shock or anger. And a person is still dead.

That said, I don't support the death penalty so I didn't vote in the poll.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I fail to see the recognition of your spouse's adultery as a reasonable excuse for homicide. You have to already harbor homicidal tendencies to kill someone out of shock or anger. And a person is still dead.
The difference is he didn't kill him just for fun. If he did, then he would be likely to kill again.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
The difference is he didn't kill him just for fun. If he did, then he would be likely to kill again.
Who said anything about murdering for fun? The example was murder during a convenience store robbery and killing the person you found in bed with your spouse. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. They both signify homicidal tendencies. And they both ended with an innocent person being dead.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Who said anything about murdering for fun? The example was murder during a convenience store robbery and killing the person you found in bed with your spouse. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. They both signify homicidal tendencies. And they both ended with an innocent person being dead.
If your reffering to the fact that they both are dead yeah theres no difference. But the circumstances are much different. The robber was a criminal, probably able to commit crime again and most likely killed without remorse. The husband, on the other hand, is probably someone without criminal tendecies who has anger management issues and would be unlikely to commit a crime a second time, if given the opportunity.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
FinnMacCool said:
If your reffering to the fact that they both are dead yeah theres no difference. But the circumstances are much different. The robber was a criminal, probably able to commit crime again and most likely killed without remorse. The husband, on the other hand, is probably someone without criminal tendecies who has anger management issues and would be unlikely to commit a crime a second time, if given the opportunity.
I don't know.....I think all those probabilities are too much to count on because people just aren't that categorical. There all sorts of mitigating circumstances that could affect your view of the defendant one way or the other. Presumptions, such as those you make above, are not very handy and can promote misleading stereotypes that could interfere with a judicious observation of the facts. In my opinion.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
I don't know.....I think all those probabilities are too much to count on because people just aren't that categorical. There all sorts of mitigating circumstances that could affect your view of the defendant one way or the other. Presumptions, such as those you make above, are not very handy and can promote misleading stereotypes that could interfere with a judicious observation of the facts. In my opinion.
It shouldnt' affect a jurors view of the matter but it should affect the judge's perception. In these cases, a judge should be lenient maybe giving the husband 20 years with a possibility of parole.
 

Blue Collar Joe

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Location
USA Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Hard question to answer. There are several different things that one must take into consideration when answering the question you pose.
Not on the robber. Give him a fifty thousand volt enema and be done with it, but the husband? Scarecrow Akbar outlined several different scenarios, and all are valid points to be considered.
Also, if the husband already knew of the infidelity and planned to walk in and be 'surprised' so he could kill the boyfriend, that is a different issue, as that would be pre-meditated.
As for the question about adultery not being illegal, it used to be. Then those who couldn't keep their pants/skirt on whined and the law was changed.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Blue Collar Joe said:
Hard question to answer. There are several different things that one must take into consideration when answering the question you pose.
Not on the robber. Give him a fifty thousand volt enema and be done with it, but the husband? Scarecrow Akbar outlined several different scenarios, and all are valid points to be considered.
Also, if the husband already knew of the infidelity and planned to walk in and be 'surprised' so he could kill the boyfriend, that is a different issue, as that would be pre-meditated.
As for the question about adultery not being illegal, it used to be. Then those who couldn't keep their pants/skirt on whined and the law was changed.
LOL, so you really suppose the law was changed because adulterers whined about the law? I think it's far more likely that it dawned on lawmakers that what two consenting adults do in bed is not under governmental jurisdiction and rightly so. Laws against adultery would be a flagrant waste of time and money.

But I do agree that the defense of a "crime of passion" is not a dependable gauge of murderous intent. There are all sorts of mitigating factors that could play into the scenario of such a crime. Same with the murder of a convenience store clerk in my opinion. Not to say that the intent is ever necessarily the same, but the intent to murder may not always be present in such a crime.
 

Deegan

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
2
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
mixedmedia said:
LOL, so you really suppose the law was changed because adulterers whined about the law? I think it's far more likely that it dawned on lawmakers that what two consenting adults do in bed is not under governmental jurisdiction and rightly so. Laws against adultery would be a flagrant waste of time and money.

But I do agree that the defense of a "crime of passion" is not a dependable gauge of murderous intent. There are all sorts of mitigating factors that could play into the scenario of such a crime. Same with the murder of a convenience store clerk in my opinion. Not to say that the intent is ever necessarily the same, but the intent to murder may not always be present in such a crime.
Agreed, you would have to have all the information involved in this case, it's impossible to make an honest judgment without all the relevant facts.
 

Blue Collar Joe

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Location
USA Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
mixedmedia said:
LOL, so you really suppose the law was changed because adulterers whined about the law? I think it's far more likely that it dawned on lawmakers that what two consenting adults do in bed is not under governmental jurisdiction and rightly so. Laws against adultery would be a flagrant waste of time and money.

But I do agree that the defense of a "crime of passion" is not a dependable gauge of murderous intent. There are all sorts of mitigating factors that could play into the scenario of such a crime. Same with the murder of a convenience store clerk in my opinion. Not to say that the intent is ever necessarily the same, but the intent to murder may not always be present in such a crime.

I agree that it would be an immense waste of resources, especially today. Better to let the issue be resolved in Divorce Court than criminal.
 

Apostle13

Wisdom Warrior
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
24
Location
Outer Darkness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Blue Collar Joe said:
I agree that it would be an immense waste of resources, especially today. Better to let the issue be resolved in Divorce Court than criminal.
Agreed.
As the unsuspecting husband having twice now experienced walking in on
my now two X's... I would've that I could've killed'em all then and there. Once even having a gun on my hip (cop) at the time... But level-headedness restrained me... Divorce court drained me.
 
Last edited:

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
mixedmedia said:
Who said anything about murdering for fun? The example was murder during a convenience store robbery and killing the person you found in bed with your spouse. I don't see a lot of difference between the two. They both signify homicidal tendencies. And they both ended with an innocent person being dead.
Hmmm...a friend of mine owned a convenience store, until he was kiled in a robbery.

The robber plans to commit a criminal act, and he commits it armed with the intent of using the weapon if necessary.

The husband catching the wife by surprise hasn't planned anything.
 

Blue Collar Joe

Active member
Joined
Feb 5, 2006
Messages
350
Reaction score
0
Location
USA Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Apostle13 said:
Agreed.
As the unsuspecting husband having twice now experienced walking in on
my now two X's... I would've that I could've killed'em all then and there. Once even having a gun on my hip (cop) at the time... But level-headedness restrained me... Divorce court drained me.

Which proves sexism in the courts still exists. If a man is the one screwing around, he gets taken to the cleaners. If it is a woman doing the screwing around, she takes her husband to the cleaners.
 

mixedmedia

iniquitably employed
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
6,823
Reaction score
373
Location
Naples, FL
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hmmm...a friend of mine owned a convenience store, until he was kiled in a robbery.

The robber plans to commit a criminal act, and he commits it armed with the intent of using the weapon if necessary.

The husband catching the wife by surprise hasn't planned anything.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend.

But that doesn't give you universal insight into the mind of every person who ever robbed a convenience store.

Nor can you say with any authority that every crime of passion is carried out with the same intent or forethought.

I realize you have a penchant for absolutes, but sorry, I see too much complexity in the world for that.
 

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Let's broaden this out a bit to see if people still fail to employ moral reasoning in other situations:

Person A causes the death of person B in each case:

Situation A -- person A is driving a car and the brakes fail, the car running into person B.

Situation B -- person A is driving a car, and their foot slips off the brake

Situation C -- person A is talking on the cell phone and doesn't notice person B

Situation D -- person A is drunk and runs a stop light

Situation E -- person A intentionally runs the stop light.

Situation F -- person A and person B just had a big fight and person A speeds up when approaching person B

Situation G -- Person A runs over person b and person b is only injured, so person A runs over them again.

Situation H -- person A runs over person B until legs are pinned, then proceeds to torture person B to death.

Situation I -- well, I could get carried away, but won't.


As has been pointed out, and thankfully so, our legal system is predicated upon the sort of moral reasoning where situation A is not confused with situation I or any point in between. There are shades of grey. There are *always* shades of grey in situations for the obvious reason that not all situations are the same, and failing to distinguish the differences in moral implications for varying actions is simply that -- a failure in understanding.

I'm reminded of the way systematic Islamist propaganda has created the notion in sympathetic minds of a moral equivalency between intentionally murdering an innocent person, and other actions where a person was either not innocent or the intent was not to kill them. If people employed some moral reasoning to this, they would see right through the ruse and recognize the underlying sophistry. I see a similar situation here in that people might equate two different acts in their own head, but this doesn't mean they have the same moral implication.
 

Apostle13

Wisdom Warrior
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
24
Location
Outer Darkness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Blue Collar Joe said:
Which proves sexism in the courts still exists. If a man is the one screwing around, he gets taken to the cleaners. If it is a woman doing the screwing around, she takes her husband to the cleaners.
Yep... Then you have to want to go and kill the lawyers too...
 
Top Bottom