• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What difference does the "why" make?

C

Chiropteran

Diamond Member
Something brought up in the cop taser killing thread.

Cop kills a suspect with a taser.

Does it really mater why he killed the suspect?

Possibilities-

The cop is racist and killed because he hated blacks.

The cop is a psychopath and he killed just because he could.

The cop is sadistic and wanted to torture the guy and got a little out of hand.

The cop is just retarded and he though he was doing his job and didn't realize 9 taser shocks was too much.


Does it really matter?

Regardless of the reason, the victim is still dead.

Why should the cop be punished differently depending on the reason?


This is not just about that one situation, this sort of thinking goes into many of our laws.

For example, drinking and driving.

A driver is involved in an accident with another vehicle and kills a mother and her two kids.

Possibilities

-The driver was drunk and crashed into the mother's vehicle.

-The driver wasn't drunk, but was driving recklessly, speeding, wasn't paying attention, and crashed into the mother's vehicle.

-The driver wasn't drunk, but was driving under a severe lack of sleep and didn't react fast enough and caused the accident.

-The driver was driving 100% correctly, and the mother made a driving mistake that caused the accident.

-The driver was legally drunk*, yet was driving safely until the mother made a mistake and caused an accident.

-The driver was not drunk, but was speeding 2-3 mph over the limit, and the mother made a driving mistake which caused the accident.


Now. IMHO, the only thing that matters is who is at fault and causes the accident. If the driver caused the accident, he should be held responsible. If he did not, he should not be held responsible. Whether he was drunk or speeding or whatever is irrelevant to him causing the accident or not. I'm not saying those crimes should go unpunished. If the driver is drunk, but doesn't cause the accident, he should still be punished the same as any drunk driver who is caught driving- but he shouldn't automatically be held responsible for the accident if evidence says that he wasn't.

Am I in the minority here, does anyone agree?


*In many states, being legally drunk doesn't necessarily mean you are drunk in the usual sense.
 
I don't think it matters. We punish crimes not motives. A motive is not a crime, an idea is not a crime.
 
Motive is a factor because while part of our criminal justice system is based around punitive consequences for actions committed, part of it is based around the likelihood that such actions will be performed again in the future. Motives are used to determine how much of a risk someone is to society for future purposes. A man who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and kills her in a fit of passionate rage will probably get a lighter sentence than a man who develops intricate plans to murder someone, because it is less likely that the man who murdered in a fit of rage will do so again if he is ever released.
 
The why makes a difference. The reason is willful negligence. If I am doing my best driving and I make a mistake, killing someone, that is a shame, but not a crime. I was not willfully doing something I knew could kill someone, so why should I be punished? I should have to pay for my damages and live with the knowledge I killed someone. If I am speeding or driving drunk, I am doing so with the knowledge that what I am doing is dangerous and kills people. Now I start to be criminal, but not in my intent. Thus again, being locked up with murders in rapists is extreme and not helping the community. But lets say I run your grandma down because she cut me off in traffic, now I willfully killed someone, which is much much more then doing something that might get someone hurt, now I deserve to rot.
 
It's funny how you tried to twist this by saying it's not justified because there could only be a problem with the cop.

What about "The cop tased a guy because he pulled a gun on him" or "The cop tased a guy because he was hostile".

I haven't read the story you're referring to yet (only headlines), but the reason DOES matter. There was an incident in my hometown a couple of years ago where a guy hopped up on all sorts of drugs was going on a rampage. After being tased half a dozen times and merely shaking it off, he went after the officers and they had NO choice but to beat the guy back when he came after them. Needless to say, the guy couldn't be restrained and ended up dying from cardiac arrest. Now, should the cops have done more to prevent hurting him? By your logic, the cops are still to blame for his death and should be charged accordingly.

Your over generalization makes your argument dead wrong.
 
I think it matters, because why a person committed a crime may indicate how likely they are to do it again, and the likelihood of committing a crime again should be a factor in sentencing. It is also important during the trial to know the motive of the criminal, because a jury that knows why a person did something is more likely to be able to believe that they did it.
 
Originally posted by: markgm
I see the point you're trying to make but yes, it matters.
Click to expand...

QFT

That type of reasoning though is pretty rampant is today?s youth though. I blame the teachers and professors.
 
Me think other than the newsies (pedestrian killed for 20 cents) and the justice system (murder vs manslaughter), most people don't care.
 
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Something brought up in the cop taser killing thread.

Cop kills a suspect with a taser.

Does it really mater why he killed the suspect?

Possibilities-

The cop is racist and killed because he hated blacks.

The cop is a psychopath and he killed just because he could.

The cop is sadistic and wanted to torture the guy and got a little out of hand.

The cop is just retarded and he though he was doing his job and didn't realize 9 taser shocks was too much.


Does it really matter?

Regardless of the reason, the victim is still dead.

Why should the cop be punished differently depending on the reason?


This is not just about that one situation, this sort of thinking goes into many of our laws.

For example, drinking and driving.

A driver is involved in an accident with another vehicle and kills a mother and her two kids.

Possibilities

-The driver was drunk and crashed into the mother's vehicle.

-The driver wasn't drunk, but was driving recklessly, speeding, wasn't paying attention, and crashed into the mother's vehicle.

-The driver wasn't drunk, but was driving under a severe lack of sleep and didn't react fast enough and caused the accident.

-The driver was driving 100% correctly, and the mother made a driving mistake that caused the accident.

-The driver was legally drunk*, yet was driving safely until the mother made a mistake and caused an accident.

-The driver was not drunk, but was speeding 2-3 mph over the limit, and the mother made a driving mistake which caused the accident.


Now. IMHO, the only thing that matters is who is at fault and causes the accident. If the driver caused the accident, he should be held responsible. If he did not, he should not be held responsible. Whether he was drunk or speeding or whatever is irrelevant to him causing the accident or not. I'm not saying those crimes should go unpunished. If the driver is drunk, but doesn't cause the accident, he should still be punished the same as any drunk driver who is caught driving- but he shouldn't automatically be held responsible for the accident if evidence says that he wasn't.

Am I in the minority here, does anyone agree?


*In many states, being legally drunk doesn't necessarily mean you are drunk in the usual sense.
Click to expand...

i agree with this. similar to "hate crime" does it really matter if the guy that gets killed is black, and the killer is white? why is that different than the other way around? or 2 blacks or 2 whites killing each other? If i kill somebody, no matter the race, religion etc.. its kinda obvious i have something against them!

 
Originally posted by: mugs
I think it matters, because why a person committed a crime may indicate how likely they are to do it again, and the likelihood of committing a crime again should be a factor in sentencing
Click to expand...

I don't agree.


Consider these 2 examples:

Driver 1 causes accident because driver was drunk.

Driver 2 causes accident because driver is a fucking idiot and doesn't know how to drive.


After driver 1 causes his accident, he is arrested, punished, goes to jail for a couple years, I think there is a good chance he will learn his lesson.

On the other hand, there is no cure for stupidity. Driver 2 is going to continue driving poorly after whatever punishment he receives, and the chance of him causing another accident are just as high.

What difference does it make if it's considered a crime or not?

"Oh sorry Mr Smith, you wife and kids were all killed in a car accident, but on the bright side no crime has been committed! You can rest easy and thank your stars that no law was broken when your entire family was killed."

Does it really matter? People are dead, damage is done. It is all the same in the end.
 
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?
 
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.
 
Sounds like someone needs to watch Legally Blonde. Mens Rea anyone?

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.
Click to expand...


Situation: A man shoots his wife.

He claims it was completely by accident while he was cleaning his gun.

The state offers evidence that the week before he shot her that
- he took out a one million dollar life insurance policy on her
- she found out he was having an affair and threatened in public to divorce him and ruin him financially. This was witnessed by many people in a restaurant.
- He was a firearms expert who practiced shooting twice a week and had never before had an accidental discharge
- His best friend testifies that the shooter told him he was going to "take care" of his wife problem and it would all be settled soon

So. You think that the punishment should be the same regardless of the WHY because you feel it doesn't meet the imaginary burden of absolutely provable?

It's the difference between negligence and cold blooded murder.
 
Originally posted by: darkxshade
It makes a huge difference if I shot someone in self-defense.
Click to expand...

There is a difference there.

I'm saying that the person at fault in any crime or accident should be the one to pay or be punished.

If you shot in self defense, the other guy would be at fault. Just as if you were involved in a horrible accident but it was the other guy who hit you.

 
I see a difference in a person methodically planning a person's demise, and one who snaps and kills w/o thinking rationally. Enough of a difference that punishment degree variances should exist. That is so say that I don't necessarily think that all murderers should be put to death outright.
 
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: MrWizzard
From what you are saying people who accidentally do something and people who purposefully do something should be treated/punished the same correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. It's unprovable, and I think it's just bad policy to have unprovable laws.
Click to expand...

What is improvable, it seems pretty easy to prove, someone wanted to kill someone when they say, "I hate you I'm going to kill you." Then run them over with a car.

Compared to:

The person who has a seizure, from a unforeseen brain tumor not allowing them to stop on time and accidentally hit and kill someone.

You are saying the person with the tumor should potentially get the death penalty like the person who premeditated and executed the murder?
 
Originally posted by: Injury
It's funny how you tried to twist this by saying it's not justified because there could only be a problem with the cop.

What about "The cop tased a guy because he pulled a gun on him" or "The cop tased a guy because he was hostile".
Click to expand...

well in the one he is talking about the guy was handcuffed and not fighting yet tazed a bunch of times. hell even twice after he (may) have been dead.

its funny when people complain someone is twisting something when they have no clue what the fuck they are talking about.


 
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: darkxshade
It makes a huge difference if I shot someone in self-defense.
Click to expand...

There is a difference there.

I'm saying that the person at fault in any crime or accident should be the one to pay or be punished.

If you shot in self defense, the other guy would be at fault. Just as if you were involved in a horrible accident but it was the other guy who hit you.
Click to expand...

What if you shot someone who murdered your entire family? Your head is not in the right place, you're not thinking straight, you just want revenge. Suppose the guy was going hand himself to the authorities. Do you deserve the same punishment as the killer if he were alive and behind bars?
 
Are you serious??

Person A kills person B.
Person A goes to prison???

What if it was self defense??

I can't fathom how your reasoning works. You ARE joking right??!?!
 
Using your reasoning, two people on a road trip, both physically exhausted from driving so the less tired one takes over. He then accidentally crashes the car and the passenger dies, he killed him, yes, but you're trying to tell me that's the exact same as is Joe Blow walks into a court house and point blank blows away the judge with a .45 to the head??? right...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top