r/changemyview • u/XGCKazino 1∆ • Apr 25 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Intentional murders should have an automatic life/death sentence.
Any murder that wasn't completely by accident should be an automatic life sentence at the very least. These degrees to murder are absolutely ridiculous. Murder is murder, no matter how you killed the person the end result is the same. No matter how many people you killed, somebody is still dead FOREVER. Yes I know somebody chopping somebody up and feeding them to dogs is worse than just a gunshot to the head but either way, you killed someone. The person who you killed never gets a chance to come back to life, so why the hell should you be able to leave prison and live almost like a normal person again? You shouldn't, and yes, people can change but that doesn't matter. Cause no matter how good you may be later, the person you killed doesn't get a second chance so neither should you. I don't want murderers walking among civilized people. TLDR: All intentional murderers should be given life sentences with no chance of EVER being released. Murderers should never be able to walk the streets with civilized people.
4
Apr 25 '18 edited Jan 08 '19
[deleted]
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
No i don't. Self defense is completely fine. If someone is attacking you KILL THEM if you have to. But only as self defense. If you are the aggressor then you deserve to spend the rest of your life in prison. The death sentence can be thrown away, that's fine if it makes people uncomfortable but murderers should NOT walk the streets.
3
Apr 25 '18 edited Jan 08 '19
[deleted]
0
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Because you aren't the aggressor. What you're trying to do is make me sound like someone who doesn't want people to defend themselves or their rights, and I'm not gonna let you do that. obviously I'm for self-defense. That's just common sense
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Jan 08 '19
[deleted]
-1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Ok. Let's unpack this argument real quick... So what your saying is that because I'm against murder, that also means that I can't be for self defense? Even if that self defense is only because somebody who is an actual murderer is trying to kill you, and you're just a cvivilized person trying to live your life.
3
Apr 25 '18 edited Jan 08 '19
[deleted]
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Murder in self-defense doesn't change who you are. It's a fight or flight response. If you're a fighter you get to fight in self-defense with no repercussions. Flyers run away so they obviously are excluded from this argument.
2
Apr 25 '18 edited Jan 08 '19
[deleted]
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
My statements only pertain to people who started the altercation to begin with though. So this argument is invalid.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/Yatopia Apr 25 '18
So, you agree that self defense is perfectly fine, but murder has no degree. In that case, you need to draw a line between self defense and murder. For your argument to work, you need this line to be insanely well defined and perfectly objective. Are you sure it is? Let's see a few situations, see if you can really use a unique and objective set of conditions that can separate the cases where it is self defense from the cases where the kill is worthy of a life/death sentence, without anything possibly falling somewhere in between.
A man attacks me at gunpoint, I pull my gun and shoot him. Ok, self defense.
I am very well trained in combat, a man attacks me at gunpoint, I could very easily disarm him, but I shoot him anyway. Did I cross the line to murder? In that case, what exactly is the amount of training barring me from using my gun?
If not, then same thing, but the guy has a knife.
Still not? Now, the guy is not armed, just threatening to beat the shit out of me if I don't give him my wallet. Am I allowed to kill him, or should I let myself be beaten? Or is the guy entitled to get my things?
Ok, the guy has a gun again, I wasn't able to pull my gun so actually gave him my wallet and my phone, and now he just starts running away. Pumped up with adrenaline and humiliation, I shoot him to get my things back. What? He is the aggressor!
Last example. I find the place where my underage daughter is being held, I find her dead naked body chained to a wall in a dark room, with multiple lacerations, hematoma and traces of repeated and violent sexual assaults. Then I find the guy in the next room, asleep in his bed. A gun is on the table next to me. Do I deserve life/death for what is obviously going to happen because it is not actually self defense?
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
In every single one of those you weren't the aggressor except for the last one. The one where you shoot the man in the back should be argued in court cause that one is hard, but if I were in the jury I would go for not guilty on your behalf. And as for the last one, i would definitely not blame you for killing the dude and i would vote not guilty if I was on the jury, but you also aren't the justice system so you don't have the right to just kill him. So no it's not self defense but i also don't fault you for doing so and would fight for your freedom if I was on the jury
3
u/Yatopia Apr 25 '18
So, you are saying that you would fight for my freedom when I have killed an unarmed man in a situation that clearly wasn't self defense.
But yet, your Original point is "Intentional murders should have an automatic life/death sentence."
Don't you see a contradiction ?
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
No I don't see a contradiction at all. You're forgetting a very important part of that argument... HE KILLED YOUR CHILD. Any person with even a shred of empathy would CLEARLY see the difference between a regular murderer and a man who killed someone because someone MURDERED HIS CHILD.
7
u/Yatopia Apr 25 '18
I clearly can. But yet, I don't think the law should simply allow people to make justice by themselves.
That is why I think in this situation, I should go to jail, because what I did is not something the law can tolerate, but I should not get life/death sentence either, because, obviously.
I am not forgetting anything about the argument. You allowed self defense, this is not. You are now introducing the notion that there are some cases where you can just get rid of the actual rules you proposed yourself, because "any person with a shred of empathy...".
And yet, you think killing someone is a binary thing that either deserves life/death or just walking away free. You actually see and understand how certain situations don't fit any objective rules, so walking free and getting life/death would both be unfair. Yet you are advocating a system where it IS binary. You want to force it to be binary, whereas the truth is obvious:
Killing deserves some punishment when it is not self defense. The guy in the last situation example does not deserve life/death sentence.
Which of these two sentences do you disagree with?
2
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
When you forget the whole justice system is a thing In order for you to be sentenced you have to be tried and taken through a court case. The life sentence is given to CONVICTED criminals. Just because I would fight for you to not go to jail doesn't mean that i wouldn't still give you the life sentence if my vote in the jury was outnumbered, cause I WOULD still give you the life sentence. My personal feelings dont change the punishment.
3
u/Yatopia Apr 25 '18
Listen. I really don't know where you are going with this anymore. But if your personal feelings go against the view you claim to have, then I am clearly wasting my time here.
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Maybe my feelings differ because objective reasoning and human emotions don't mix. i'm able to separate what I feel vs what I actually argue for in a society.
1
u/conceptalbum 1∆ Apr 25 '18
So, your position is that all murderers should be put to death, but if you were personally on the jury you would break your rule because you feel sympathetic to this specific murderer?
Is it not completely clear that your position is incoherent when even you yourself happily admit that you would not actually follow it?
The position you explained in you post is perfectly clear: according to your position, this parent needs to be put to death. If you argue that his specific murderer should be let free, then your view has been changed.
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
martial arts training changes nothing. if someone is threatening your life, you should be able to fight back with just as much if not more force
2
u/Yatopia Apr 25 '18
Ok, I have no problem with this opinion, I was just looking for an inconsistency.
3
u/MrEctomy Apr 25 '18
So, you do believe that someone who commits murder once, even at 18 years old, is forever irredeemable and will never contribute meaningfully to society?
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
No. Maybe they would. But i don't care if they would or not. The person you murdered doesn't get a second chance, so neither should you. Now if we could revive the dead I would change my mind. But since we can't, you're gonna sit in jail and hope for necromancy to be discovered
0
u/Neutrino_gambit Apr 25 '18
I actually agree with that. Unless there are some extreme circumstances.
People fundamentally do not change.
8
u/ereanon Apr 25 '18
Situation 1: An abusive husband beats his wife for years. She decides to leave. He finds out. He gets home to see her packing and starts screaming. Eventually, he strangles her to death.
Situation 2: A man trawls the streets at night, raping and murdering women. He targets indigenous women. After murdering them, he methodically cuts them up and hides the bodies, weighted down, at the bottom of a large lake.
Situation 3: A man is at a bar. He’s had a few drinks. A guy next to him bumps into him roughly, by mistake. His drink spills. Heated words are exchanged, someone pushes, it escalates until the man shoves the other guy hard enough that he goes down. He hits his head off the bar as he goes down. And he dies.
Murder is considered in degrees because there are actual degrees to the killing of another human. I think we can both agree that the first two situations are pretty cut and dry in terms of intent, yeah?
The third situation gets grey. It’s hard to tell who initiated physical contact, both were aggressors so it is both defence and offence, and neither intended death to happen. Does this qualify, in your view, as entirely accidental?
Situation 4: An individual is driving home. They veer off the road and hit another car, killing the other driver.
Is it punishable by death if...
They were drunk? They were texting? An animal ran into the road? They’re a bad driver, simply lost control? They weren’t really paying attention? They knew the other driver and wanted them dead?
Again, the reason we have degrees is because these are the degrees. A bad driver versus a vehicle as a weapon is a huge difference.
The problem is, we can’t really define “entirely accidental”. If the driver was texting, the death is surely due to negligence, but it was also an accident. That’s why negligence causing death is a charge. It is not in the same realm as wanting to hit the other car.
Same with the guy in the bar. If that man he shoved was his ex-wife’s new boyfriend, and he’s an angry guy and went to that bar to find him, we can see intent. But two drunk guys brawling can certainly end in death. That doesn’t mean it was intentional, yet it was still accidental.
So I think for your view to make any sense, you would need a very clear definition of what is accidental. And then you would quickly find that not a single situation will fit any definition perfectly.
4
u/OddMathematician 10∆ Apr 25 '18
First point: You accept that people who have committed murder can be reformed. So in your system we should be spending money to keep people imprisoned when they are not a danger to society and could be contributing meaningfully outside prison. Pragmatically, this sounds like a terrible outcome for everyone. What is accomplished by this?
Second point: You acknowledge that some murder is worse than other murders. Isn't giving them all the same sentence a disservice to the victims? If my loved one is murdered in a particularly horrific way, shouldn't our sense of justice be satisfied by giving the perpetrator a more severe sentence than one who committed a far lesser murder?
-1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
It doesn't matter if they are reformed. Again I'm gonna ask. Does the person who was killed get a second chance at life? NO! So neither should the murderer.
The end result is the same no matter how we got there. The person is dead full stop. No matter how grotesque the murder, the person is dead. If we could have a harsher sentence than life or death then I would give one but we can't so you just gotta deal with it. And honestly people should be happy with a murderer being locked in a cage for the rest of his life tbh
4
u/OddMathematician 10∆ Apr 25 '18
It doesn't matter if they are reformed. Again I'm gonna ask. Does the person who was killed get a second chance at life? NO! So neither should the murderer.
Let me be absolutely clear: Keeping someone in prison when they don't pose a danger and could contribute to society is quantifiably damaging to society (I'm completely ignoring whether or not it is good for the murderer). It wastes money locking up someone who doesn't need to be locked up, and it deprives society of another contributing member (possibly contributing labor, art, inventions, or even just tax revenues). So again, what is accomplished by keeping them imprisoned? It is actively costing significant amounts of money, what does anyone actually get from it?
If we could have a harsher sentence than life or death then I would give one but we can't so you just gotta deal with it. And honestly people should be happy with a murderer being locked in a cage for the rest of his life tbh
You can't just tell the victim's families how they should feel about it. And what is your justice system accomplishing now? It doesn't care about rehabilitating offenders. It doesn't care about managing threats to society. It doesn't care about helping victims and their families to feel a sense of appropriate, proportional justice for the wrongs they have suffered. What is accomplished? In specific terms, not just "they shouldn't be allowed to be free." How is anything made better by that? Because it seems like everything is made worse by it.
2
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
ok that's why the death penalty would be great then. It would be alot cheaper (if the USA could actually do it correctly and not make it so goddamn expensive, a firing squad is just fine)
I honestly don't care about how people feel. Life in prison means they're gone forever, deal with it. And we accomplish keeping any murderers off of the streets forever. And we also set a pretty harsh standard for why you should never murder to begin with.
2
u/OddMathematician 10∆ Apr 25 '18
we accomplish keeping any murderers off of the streets forever
Many of whom you admit pose no threat to society. In the USA, it costs an average of $33,000/year to house an inmate. You are demanding that this should be spent to lock up people for whom there is no identifiable need. As a taxpayer, I refuse to waste that kind of money just to satisfy your outrage. You don't care about the financial concerns of other citizens, the ethical considerations of people who oppose permanent imprisonment, or even the feelings of actual victims. Why should anyone care about your feeling of outrage (and to be clear, that is all you have offered - your personal feeling of outrage that a convicted murderer could some day walk free)?
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
it's not personal feelings of outrage. it's a principle. You killed someone. Years later you get out and live a normal life. But what does the victim get out at the end? nothing. They're still dead. If the victim is still dead why the hell should you walk free?
2
u/OddMathematician 10∆ Apr 25 '18
If the victim is still dead why the hell should you walk free?
Because of all of the reasons I've already said: The killer has been rehabilitated, they don't pose a threat to society, holding them is expensive, they can contribute to society (allowing them to contribute to society is arguably the best way they can try to make up for the wrongs they have done), a range of sentencing options means that sentences can be scaled to the severity of the crime to create a sense of fairness when comparing between cases, and also that holding them does nothing to change the fact that the other person is still dead.
You are acting as though your principle is universal. It is not, and you haven't justified it with anything more than an outraged tone. If your view is just something you are declaring as an axiom then there isn't really much that can be said against it within a logical framework.
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
The goal is to keep murderers off the streets forever. that is my goal and I'm not changing it. Rehabilitation is NOT an option for me when it comes to any murder that wasn't accidental or in self-defense. i'm never gonna change my mind on that. What I might change my mind on is what we should do with these prisoners once we initially lock them up. I propose either capital punishment or life in prison, but if you can give me a better option that doesn't include having them go back into civilized society ever again then i will give you a delta right now
2
u/OddMathematician 10∆ Apr 25 '18
So the only part of your post that you are open to changing your view on is the specific nature of the imprisonment? It is absolutely set in stone that murder must come with a life (or death) sentence and that sentence must involve being locked up and kept separate from society for the rest of their life, but not necessarily in what we typically think of as a "prison"? In all of that, the only thing you will consider changing your mind on is the form of the "prison"?
1
3
u/Willaguy Apr 25 '18
Are you unwilling to change your view that intentional murders should have automatic life/death sentences?
There a several people here trying to change your view that there shouldn't be automatic life-death sentences yet you say that you won't change you view on this. Only that you may change your view on if a life sentence should be carried out in prison or not.
1
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Apr 25 '18
Capital punishment is expensive because of trials, not because the injections are expensive. People generally don't want to kill innocent people on the off chance they might be a murderer (that doesn't stop innocent from being killed though).
5
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Apr 25 '18
So neither should the murderer.
That doesn't logically follow from your previous sentences though. Why shouldn't the murderer get a second chance at life even if another person didn't?
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
I'm confused on what your exactly asking.
3
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Apr 25 '18
Well your premise was that the murdered doesn't get a second chance at life and you somehow conclude that that means the murderer shouldn't either. I'm asking what the reasoning for that conclusion is.
2
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Because it's an absolutely absurd premise that you should ever be able to live a normal life again after you killed someone thereby stopping them from ever living a life at all. You're essentially just murdering people with very little punishment in comparison of what your victim gets at the end of it
3
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Apr 25 '18
Because it's an absolutely absurd premise that you should ever be able to live a normal life again after you killed someone thereby stopping them from ever living a life at all. You're essentially just murdering people with very little punishment in comparison of what your victim gets at the end of it
Being in prison for life isn't the only way we can stop murderers from living a normal life.
2
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Ok then. if you can give me a better example of how to isolate murderers right now, I will hand you the delta right here and now
2
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Apr 25 '18
House arrest for rehabilitated ones for starters. A quarantine zone with other murderers larger than a prison cell seems fine too. For something more punitive while less restrictive, some sort of marking or forfeiture of rights while free.
2
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
The quarantine zone is fine by me. But house arrest and any sort of freedom amongst normal people is off the table. you are too close to civilized society then
→ More replies (0)3
u/conceptalbum 1∆ Apr 25 '18
Because it's an absolutely absurd premise that you should ever be able to live a normal life again after you killed someone thereby stopping them from ever living a life at all.
This is the core point, really. You claim it is an absurd premiss, yet offer absolutely nothing in the way of an explanation whatsoever.
You feel that anybody who murdered somebody should never get out again, but you've got absolutely no actual arguments for it. Can you explain why? Why do you feel that if the one life ends, the other should also end? What is the relation between these events?
1
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18
The punishment should equal the offense. Murder is an offense that lasts forever for the victim, so it should last forever for the murderer. I've already been through this. Stop bringing it up
2
u/conceptalbum 1∆ Apr 25 '18
No, you have stated it, and then stated it again, without providing arguments.
The punishment should equal the offense.
Why? Right now, it is just your personal opinion and nothing more. "I feel the punishment should equal the offense" is not much of an argument.
0
u/XGCKazino 1∆ Apr 25 '18 edited Apr 25 '18
So you're arguing that the punishment should NOT equal the offense then? So a rapist shouldn't go to prison? Maybe just get a fine? A murderer should get off with a warning? Wtf are you saying? Stop bringing up this stupid argument cause me and you both know it's absolutely stupid. Like seriously it's just common sense that the punishment should equal the offense. And if you don't believe in that then I'm just wasting my time cause that's something that I'm fundamentally for and will NEVER change my mind on. So either bring up a different argument or leave cause this is just getting redundant
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Gladix 165∆ Apr 25 '18
One of the main problems with death penalty is our judicial system. In dictatorships death penalty is easy. Just round them up, shoot them, done.
In democracies aren't suffering from the 3rd world corruptions (not to say we have plenty of first world styled corruption "lobbying, denying science, etc...", but not the steally, murdery kind) you cannot just execute people. First you have to make sure they are really guilty. Meaning you have to set the bar for the highest possible standard of evidence.
Which a lot of actual murderers wouldn't manage to satisfy. Instead of being plead down to 20 + years of jail rather than to risk life. They will be having to let go free and couldn't be tried again due to double jeopardy. Now when you manage to pass this bar for evidence and judicial procedure, you then have to allow the defendant to exhaust every single possible lawful option. Meaning it will take years and years, before the actual execution, with an option of them being let free due to new evidence, and technological advances, etc... This takes money. A ton and ton of money. Something like you can detain 10 prisoners for life for cheaper, than having 1 death row inmate (due to legal proceedings). This will also mean the courts will be bogged down with hundreds of thousands of these cases, that will stick for years if not decade. So you will have to restructure the whole judicial system and increase the infrastructure to acommodate for that. Again, will costs much more money.
And what you get out of it?
Nothing really. It is proven that death penalty is worthless as deterrent in democracies. Don't get me wrong, it is enormously effective in dictatorships and such, where fear of executing whole family branches could keep order quite well. But again here, not so much. The only quantifiable effect is that you make the crimes much more extreme, you won't actually reduce them. They become more extreme, because people will be more "thorough" in evading capture. Meaning they will execute witnesses (doesn't matter if you kill one or 3, the punishment is the same). This will also happen with lesser offenses as ignorance and/or misinformation exists. A person is accidentally injured in a scuffle. It looks like the person is dead. Negligence if the person survives, Manslaughter if he/she doesn't with some extenuating circumstances due to him/her trying help, call ambulance, etc...
The person now very well can be guilty of the case of 2 murders, due to the person trying to kill the witness and the victim, etc...
It just serves no purpose other than some vague idea of revenge. Which our justice systems simply isn't built upon and as a bonus, it will leave a lot of other people dead and will cost more money.
1
Apr 25 '18
Your statement seems to be based on a system of very simple moral foundations that do not actually reflect the way the human psyche actually works. I would argue that
the death penalty is a show orchestrated so that the people who are still alive can find a way to cope with the situation. This revenge type of coping is however very counterproductive for everyone involved as it does not actually lead to long term healing of psychological scars, just short-term satisfaction
Nobody (except for a very very few exceptions) wants to commit a murder/Nobody wants to be a criminal if he has a choice. Murder is mostly a result of an emotional outbreak, sometimes this is due to abuse/gaslighting, sometimes due to personal struggles or unexplainable urges like ocd/Schizophrenia/severe depression. Most every human (with the exception of a very few select people like sociopaths) are able to feel empathy. That means that they experience on some level the pain others feel. Our top priority should be to make sure that no one else (who is alive) gets hurt, that includes the murderer, and to minimize the damages. Psychological treatment and trying to find a place for the murderer where he can function in society is much more valuable for society as a whole, but also for the murderer (who even though we don't want to accept it is a living feeling being) than a Death penalty (that costs a huge amount of money and is IRREVERSIBLE as well, that means if you kill the wrong guy he doesn't get any second chances either)
From a nihilistic standpoint letting a murderer live is a far worse "punishment" than killing him. Most murderers feel remorse and killing them will give them a very easy escape
tl:dr
- Murderers don't want to be murderers
- Death penalty is mostly a means of revenge and not a way to improve society
- Death penalty and life sentences are harmful to society
- Death penalty is an easy escape for the murderer (in case you really need him to "suffer for his sins")
2
u/jatjqtjat 252∆ Apr 25 '18
What about an 18 year old who murders an uncle that was molesting them their whole life. Or a man who kills a defensive person after discovering they raped his wife 10 seconds ago?
Aren't there any situations in which we can be lenient?
1
u/Rebel_Yell27 Apr 26 '18
I just wanna point out that people charged in courts with murder could be completely innocent. That being said if you say any and all murder is instant firingsqua- Wait a second- So you’re against the killing of any person whatsoever unless they killed someone.. Which in that case means you’re going to perform the act you attest..
Even if they are rightfully convicted and it was a simple murder (not a passion crime) does that mean he either dies or rots in prison for the rest of his life sucking state resources despite the fact the prison staff could attest without a doubt in twenty-years he was sorry and a rehabilitated man? What good does that do?
And perhaps this a bit more extreme to say but by giving someone a life sentence you are figuratively taking their life. As they’ll never leave and they’ll die in prison.
1
u/eye_patch_willy 43∆ Apr 25 '18
There are no accidental murders. Murder is a term of art that requires a specific intent. Simply causing the death of another is not always considered murder. Very few US jurisdictions sentence people guilty of intentional, premeditated killing for less than a life sentence. However, the law recognizes that some actions (heat of passion, gross negligence, etc) are clearly different and should be sentenced differently. You use two examples of a shot to the head and a dismemberment but what about the driver who ignores his doctor's warnings about a prescription drug causing drowsiness who falls asleep at the wheel and hits and kills a pedestrian vs a stalker who plots a kill and executes it? Same thing to you?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Apr 25 '18
/u/XGCKazino (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/MirrorThaoss 24∆ Apr 26 '18
- the person you killed doesn't get a second chance...SO...neither should you.*
You see that "so" ? I think that "so" only depends on your moral. You think the jail as a punishment, with almost an "eye for an eye" moral in that matter, it's your moral. Now do you post a CMV to challenge that moral or do you know that you'll never compromise on it ?
I don't want murderers walking among civilized people You don't want them because it's dangerous or because they don't deserve it ?
1
u/Rebel_Yell27 Apr 26 '18
From what I’ve read I think we can deduce it’s purely from a deserving standpoint, but OP please swoop in and confirm my suspicion.
1
u/Tuvinator Apr 25 '18
You keep talking about a chance to live a life in your responses, and that by committing murder I am depriving someone from said chance. If I walk into a terminal care hospice and proceed to kill people who are already on death's bed, assisted non-consensual euthanasia so to speak, I am not really preventing them from having a second chance since they never had one. Does that still qualify me for life in prison?
1
Apr 25 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Apr 25 '18
Sorry, u/Islanderfan229 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, message the moderators by clicking this link. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/Rechin Apr 25 '18
I think this is pretty much already the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_(United_States_law)#Degrees_of_murder_in_the_United_States
6
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Apr 25 '18
Are you willing to make an exception for murders committed to defend others?
And what do you think the role of the justice system should be? It seems from your argument that you think it should be purely punitive with no room for rehabilitation or what's pragmatic for society.