Discussions
Which Is Worse?
Posted by stevil13 • 6 days ago • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: murder, news, politics, poll, q&a, question, Radio, talk
Hypothetical question here.
Scenario 1. A person is murdered. A family member responds in anger and kills the person who did it.
Scenario 2. A person is murdered. A judge makes a discretionary call (by law he could go either way) to block evidence that could lead to the conviction of the person who did it.
Remember, in both scenarios we KNOW who committed the murder. In scenario 1 a family member kills the perp. In scenario 2 a Judge lets him walk.
Question. Which person is more offensive to you? The Judge or the family member?
I am asking this question for a talk show I do. I will read any good answers live on the show. It runs at 11pm eastern tonight. You have about 3 hours to answer to be included.
If you would like to have your blog name mentioned on the air, please include YOUR name and the NAME AND URL OF YOUR BLOG in your answer.
If you are interested in hearing the discussion, click here at 11pm Eastern.
www.blogtalkradio.com/TheAxisOfStevil/2009/11/15/The-Axis-Of-Stevil-Show
You can also call in and give your answer live if you so desire.
Thanks for your help.
User Comments
-
While I wouldn't encourage/support/etc. the family member's actions on scenario 1, it does seem worse to let the killer walk. Paves the way for more deaths by his hand (if the murder isn't a one-time, accidental thing). -
I hate the 2 solutions!
For the 1st one, there is no excuse for killing, even not revenge.
For the 2nd one it's the same, because like friday13 said, letting the killer go means that there could be more death. Plus, a judge is supposed to be warrant of the law.-
I realize neither one is the best option but in the scenario, does one offend you more than the other?
-
If I did understand well and the judge is abusing of a power he has, the 2nd solution seems worse to me because of all the consequences in the futur. For this killer he didn't arrest, and for all the futur cases he will have in which he will act the same.
-
Thank you.
-
-
as long as the judge is following the letter of the law, he/she is simply doing his/her job. Nothing dispicable about that.
If a judge were to deliberately thwart justice for personal reasons, that is a whole 'nother matter-
I do not understand that the judge is following the letter of the law here. What I understand is that he abuse of a power he has.
-
I do not understand that the judge is following the letter of the law here. What I understand is that he abuse of a power he has.
-
The law gives a Judge discretion in cases that are not clear. Some would hope that any evidence that is not clearly ruled out by law would be admitted. When it is not, some may see this as abuse. Others would see it as his right. That's what I was looking for. Thank you Agit8r.
-
@AH
do you mean to tell me that you actually found any related content on the other end of that link? I bow to your web-surfing ability O_O -
No, I think there is something I did not understand here. "The judge discretion"... I am not a law person, but can a judge use this to let escape a killer when there is evidence of his guilt?
-
:-D) I just understood what you meaan!! No, not this time" lol!
-
-
Scenario 1
A family member taking action by committing the very same crime the original criminal committed that the family member condemns.
or
Scenario 2
A Judge blocks evidence that could lead to the conviction of the person who did it. However, what we don't know in this scenario is what the judges justification was for blocking the evidence. If the evidence was not presented according to proper procedure, then it would be the Judges moral obligation as a Judge to follow the law.
Also, it is possible that scenario 2 could cause or at least contribute to scenario 1 in that the family member feels the law has failed.
Conclusion:
No matter what the family members justification, murder is wrong even for revenge.
While it is unfortunate that the murder gets set free in scenario two, I still would have to say that either way, it seems that scenario one is worse. The very crime the family member condemns, then goes and commits the same crime themselves.
While in scenario two, if the Judge was following and enforcing the laws and rules of the court, he is doing his duty in upholding the law. This would seem to be a failure on the prosecutors part for not doing what is necessary to get the evidence into the case.
We would also have to consider the revenge loop that this causes. Now that the family member goes to Jail, and for some reason, the judge is not able to allow certain evidence into the case again, and the family members gets set free, we wouldn't think it is okay for the original murderers family member to come and murder them.-
Well thought out and worded. Thank you.
-
I guess I finally prefer your argument, because you are right, one must be judge on his act and not on the potentialities contained in his act.
-
@Scenario 1: Only if the family member who was murdered also committed murder. Otherwise it may be an act of justice and thus the blood may be on the head of the new victim, and it's not the "same crime" if it's done to "put away the evil from among you." (The Torah) -
So you are using the torah to justify murdering now?
-
seems like the Torah contained provisions for manslayers to have cities to take refuge in, to protect them from vengeful families...
-
@morgantj: It's not really murder. It may be tried as murder under the law, and it is certainly disrespectful to the law, but the offense is against the law and the United States, not the murderer (unless they don't have sufficient evidence, of course.) It is far closer to Treason then Murder - it still should be punished, but killing someone out of selfishness and killing someone out of justice are not the same crime, though they are both crimes.
@Agit8r: ACCIDENTAL manslaughter. -
But you don't know that in scenario 1 the murderers reason and justification was to take justice in his own hands.
If you actually believe that some reasoning and justification for murder is better than others, than you need to consider that in scenario 1 the motives of the murderer could have been to take justice in their own hands as well. So you have a bunch of people with family and friends murdering each other back and forth with each one thinking it is okay because their motivation is what you consider "justice." Well, You have just slaughtered two entire families and their friends and their families and friends... and so on and on and on, and it never ends.
Yea, I think that is worse than a judge not admitting evidence that wasn't admitted via the proper procedures of law. If the Judge were to allow such evidence that wasn't admitted correctly by law, than he would be breaking the law. And would you want a law breaking judge to judge you?
-
-
2, definitely. I don't even think 1 is that bad. I'd more readily trust a victim to decide the fate of his perpetrator than the state.-
Well, the victim is dead in this case, so he or she is not deciding much. However, if family or friends were to determine the perpetrators fate it leads to an infinite regression of violence and murder.
The problem with this reasoning is it never ends. The perpetrator now becomes the victim, and under your proposal it would be okay for the new victims family and friends to determine the new perpetrators fate. And it goes on and on and on...
-
-
Very interesting. Could be a dangerous slippery slope, but still interesting.
-
Scenario 1 is worse. Let's say the family consists of a husband and wife, and their child. A murderer comes along and kills the wife.
In scenario 1 the husband goes and kills the murderer. He now goes to jail for life, and the child spends the rest of it's life without either parent.
In scenario 2 the judge lets the murderer off, he or she may or may not kill again, but the father and child stay together and can get on with their lives as a family.
In the end, neither way brings back the dead. -
I think that scenario 2 is more offensive because of the affect it would have on society as a whole. If the court systems which uphold the law fail to do their job, we end up with a break down in our faith in the system. That could lead to more scenarios like the first one.
In the first scenario, if it becomes public, it may make society think twice about solving problems with violence out of fear of retribution from family members.
-Mike -
The comparison is meaningless. In both cases the biggest loss, the loss to lawfulness for all, is complete. In one case, a judge let's a guilty man walk, in another case, a person decides to preclude law entirely for no just, pragmatic reason but simply out of revenge. Maybe 2's a bit worse then 1, but the harm to society is so much greater then the difference that it's not worthy of even considering.
-
If the judge did a bad job, it can be perhaps corrected by appealing etc. But what the family member did in a fit of rage, it cannot be undone -
Thanks for your help people. Great answers and great material for discussion.
-
I would have to say #2. I am not all about the family member committing murder however I can respect that situation more then a crooked judge using their power to let a known killer walk the streets. At least if the murderer was murdered then we know they would not walk the streets to kill again -
I think they are both bad.
But letting the perp walk is probably MORE offensive.
It would depend on the situation (for example: WHAT THE FIRST MURDER WAS, how it was committed, why it was committed, etc.) - in other words if a MAN killed a pedophile who raped his baby daughter... And then a judge let him go... That might be more or less offensive than if the pedophile's family killed the father that killed the pedophile...
Yanno?
It's not an easy situation unless the ENTIRE scenario was explained. Because there could be justifiable reasons behind each action. -
There is no possible justification for number one; there may be for number two. So I think #1 is "worse." -
It is against the law for people to take justice in their own hands and go and murder people that they think are guilty of some crime. In the countries that allow this or at least are disorganized enough to allow this to happen, there is chaos, murder, and crime, people are out of control, and there is never any justice.
Where as a judge not admitting evidence because it wasn't admitted via the proper procedures of law is him doing his duty to uphold the law. If the Judge were to allow such evidence that wasn't admitted correctly by law, than he would be breaking the law. And would you want a law breaking judge to judge you, right? If the system fails because of this, it should be appealed, and the murderer put on trial again with all the evidence.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
