Originally posted by sh76I have to disagree with you. It's based on justice, not logic. Besides, if someone kills my kid i'll kim them---and probably get less than 10 years for my moment of "temporary insanity" and lack of any prior convictions.
That's why we don't entrust sentencing to the victim or the victim's family. Punishment has to be based on logic, not emotion.
3 edits
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenTemporary insanity is either a complete defense (if applicable) or not a defense at all. In most cases, it's the latter. Insanity defenses "work" only roughly 10% of the time; and temporary insanity defenses work even less frequently.
I have to disagree with you. It's based on justice, not logic. Besides, if someone kills my kid i'll kim them---and probably get less than 10 years for my moment of "temporary insanity" and lack of any prior convictions.
In your case though, your charge may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter ("heat of passion" ), in which case it's certainly possible that you would serve 10 years or less. But, I wouldn't take it as a given.
Edit: and justice is logical, not emotional
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThey teach the logic behind punishment (incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence and retribution).
There is nothing logical about justice, nor should there be. Do they not teach any philosophy of science in law school?
They teach the logic that comprises tort theory.
They teach the logic that goes into determining contract damages.
They steer as far clear of emotion and philosophy as possible.
Compassion for a criminal defendant is the occasional exception. though, of course, that, too. is logical.
To increase a person's punishment or award tort or contract damages based on emotional factors goes against justice.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenLet's take this one step further then, just to see who the moron is:
So if someone kills someone on tv, a million people see him do it, and he confesses, you are saying there is a 1% chance he didn't do it. Obviously math is not one of your strengths, but neither is thinking. Besides being considered the biggest moron on rhp you now have the distinction of having the dumbest post in the history of rhp. Congrats.
1. You believe everything you see on TV?
2. OJ Simpson. If the ball swings one way, do you not reckon it could swing another way?
3. Just because a British prime-minister says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, doesn't make it so. No matter how much TV coverage he gets, how many intelligence reports he quotes or how many world leaders agree with him.
4. Have a little look at this:
http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/low/uk_news/england/hampshire/8194839.stm
Sean Hodgson pleaded guilty after confessing to brutally raping and murdering someone.
He didn't do it. 30 years later they discovered he could not have raped the women (due to DNA testing).
Re-read that line: HE DID NOT DO IT.
Now, your simplicity and Hollywoodesque bravoure is very touching, but dissing me on suggesting there's always a 1% of innocense is as naieve as killing someone just because YOU are certain they're guilty.
Go and watch COPS or IDOLS and leave thinking to people with triple digit IQ's.
Originally posted by shavixmirGood to see the right-wing bastard has shut his gob.
Let's take this one step further then, just to see who the moron is:
1. You believe everything you see on TV?
2. OJ Simpson. If the ball swings one way, do you not reckon it could swing another way?
3. Just because a British prime-minister says there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, doesn't make it so. No matter how much TV coverage he gets, h ...[text shortened]... guilty.
Go and watch COPS or IDOLS and leave thinking to people with triple digit IQ's.
I hope he's went into hiding, so the world doesn't have to witness his embarrassment.