07 Jan 07
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenthe devil made him do it
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenThe man ... he decided to use drugs and must face the consequences of his own behavior or actions. Nobody made him take drugs.
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenThe man is guilty of murder. The seller is guilty of selling illegal drugs.
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
Besides this, there is a responsibility on the part of society. Society should create a safe environment for all wherein people have no easy access to dangerous drugs.
07 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe man may or not be guilty under the law, and since it's the law that defines "murder" ,you had better start with Mens rae.
The man is guilty of murder. The seller is guilty of selling illegal drugs.
Besides this, there is a responsibility on the part of society. Society should create a safe environment for all wherein people have no easy access to dangerous drugs.
edit,, did you actually read in the first post that the drugs were illegal?
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by frogstompI don't agree with a lot of laws in civilized countries ... that doesn't mean that I am not civilized, especially when there is no clear definition of what "civilized" is in the first place ... but that is not up for debate now.
Too bad ,,it's the law in civilized countries.
The law is created to support society ... not the other way around. A bad law is still a bad law.
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by Sushillit's STILL is tha law, whether you like it or not.
I don't agree with a lot of laws in civilized countries ... that doesn't mean that I am not civilized, especially when there is no clear definition of what "civilized" is in the first place ... but that is not up for debate now.
The law is created to support society ... not the other way around. A bad law is still a bad law.
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by rooktakesqueenAre you talking about Bush killing Saddam?
if a man is high on drugs and has no idea who he is and what he is doing and then kills a man for no reason whatsoever who's to blame? is it the man, the drugs, the drug seller, the inventor of the drug... god..?
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by frogstompI have broken many laws in my life ... so what that its a law? Whenever enough people oppose the law the law will be changed ... at least that is how it is supposed to happen ... the law serves men.
it's STILL is tha law, whether you like it or not.
The original question of the topic didn't refer to any particular set of laws so I gave my personal opinion: ... he is guilty.
07 Jan 07
Originally posted by Sushillthe drugs may or may not be illegal.
I have broken many laws in my life ... so what that its a law? Whenever enough people oppose the law the law will be changed ... at least that is how it is supposed to happen ... the law serves men.
The original question of the topic didn't refer to any particular set of laws so I gave my personal opinion: ... he is guilty.
The fellow might have known about the side effects and he might not have.
The core notion is that of capacity: if D, the person who has brought about the actus reus of an offence, is adjudged to have lacked the capacity to make a rational judgment about what s/he was doing, then D is excused as not being responsible and so not criminally liable for the crime charged