- Joined
- Apr 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,742
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Mesquite, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry to hear about your friend.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.
Yep... Then you have to want to go and kill the lawyers too...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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?