Topic: Premeditated Murder so bad?

[2quiet]

There seems to be an assumption that premeditated murders are worse than spontaneous killings. Now, in some cases I understand this. Like, if somebody picks a random target in a park to stalk, rape and murder, and does so serially, with the same plan thought out each time, then this is obviously quite heinous, and deseves a heavy sentence. In this case, the person is obviosly going to be a threat to society if released.

On the other hand, if somebody like the above character kills somebody, and a family memeber of the victim plans to find and kill the perpetrator, and executes this plan before the police can aprahend them, then is this the same?

Now, i know two wrongs dont make a right, and the vengance killing is still a crime, but if they were to be realeased, would they pose a threat to society? I don't believe so. I mean, they killed the person in a very specific situation which is highly unlikely to occur again, and so the chance of them re-offending would seem low.

Compare this to somone who is in a pub and gets angry when somone spills their beer. They stand up, yelling abuse, and a brawl ensues, during which they grab a blass and strike the other person with it, killing them. Now, there was no premeditation in this killing, and so most judicial systems would maintain that this is less severe than the first crime. But to me it would seem that someone like the person in the second case, with a tendency to flare in anger and fight, would be more likely to re-offend if something similar occured, and so pose a higher threat to society.

Now I don't propose that the first case be dismissed and the killing go unpunished, but is it fair that this person recieve 25 to life and the second 5 to 10 years on manslaughter or something like that? It seems to me that the prison system should endevour to return criminals to society as reformed citizens, and all that. So does it stand up that premeditation is regarded as so much worse that a spontaneous murder?

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Er..

Nope. Its a different degree of murder. Its not Manslaughter as you claim. Murder 1 consists of premeditated murder. What you are describing is violence gone wrong. There is no difference between the serial killer and the man who takes revenge by the same premeditated way.

[Niffenator]

It's not their place to perform a 'revenge killing'.  The sentence is up to the judge; it is not their place to decide the punishment.

That said, there is a difference between serial killing and revenge.

[CODE BLACK]

Damn, spent ages writing a reply then I pressed something and now it's all gone . Well here we go again...


I understand what your saying 2quiet, and I would agree with you to an extent. Any murder is wrong and needs to be punished, but then a premeditated crime that is to protect your family is "more acceptable" than a random premeditated murder or just a random murder. I'm not saying it is acceptable, just slightly more so.

However in my mind revenge is just as bad as anything, because your showing you are as bad as the original murderer. And Niffenator is right when he says it is up to the judge to punish a crime. People may not think the punishment handed out is good enough to punish the murderer for their crime but you have to accept it. To try and get justice in any other way would not be real justice.

I think that a murderer who killed to protect his family (or reasons that we can "understand" or even relate with) should be more readily accepted into society as a "normal" human being, but they must still be kept an eye on, and they deserve the punishment of any other murderer, because that is what they are : a murderer. But after their punishment is served they don't deserve any more prejudice against them, for they have already done their time.

So, in conclusion, Murder is murder in whatever circumstance, and should be treated as such. Murderers should be punished by the justice system not the victims family. But after the punishment is served people who murdered for "understandable" (but not acceptable, that should be pointed out) should be re-intragrated into society.

Now thats my 2 cents


p.s. my first attempt at a reply might of been better than this, but meh

[Xeal]

I personally agree with what 2quiet seems to be suggesting, sometimes the crime isn't the only way we should judge how to distrubute punishment, take the problems between pre-meditated murder and simple aggressive violence.  Though the two are far removed, in some cases a person can come close to killing someone by accident, but get a low sentance.

For example

I Work in a bar, and  have seen occasional fights  naturally, I can remmeber one, were the individual at the centre of it all, was very nearly killed, his attackers however, were only charge with ABH or GBH (can't rememebr which) and were sentenced to a couple of years in Jail, the longest sentance being 3 years.  The fight had started over the Person A (the man sent to hospital) accidently knocking into someone and spilling their pint, he'd offered to buy another one, when the other fella had hit him and started kicking him.  Naturlly Person A's mates had tried to help to help him which is when the fight broke out.

Here we can see that the person who had started it (the man who ht person A), was a major danger to society.


Now compare him to someone who lets say murdered his wife to claim her life insurance.  Naturally this person has commited a worse crime, and one thats planned.  yet is he a danger to society?  One would probably say yes, but is he as dangerous as the person mentioned above, NO.

The man may murder his wife and deserves a full punishment, yet he was of no danger to majority of the people around him, while the man in the pub was, his fighting nearly killed one man, and although not planned was a threat to everyone, yet he recieves a lighter punishment, because of his crime.

I think that motivation should be a greater factor in sentancing, unfortantly although there is some degree for it, there is still very little.

just my opinion.

[Captain Hajime]

Damn, spent ages writing a reply then I pressed something and now it's all gone . Well here we go again...


I understand what your saying 2quiet, and I would agree with you to an extent. Any murder is wrong and needs to be punished, but then a premeditated crime that is to protect your family is "more acceptable" than a random premeditated murder or just a random murder. I'm not saying it is acceptable, just slightly more so.

However in my mind revenge is just as bad as anything, because your showing you are as bad as the original murderer. And Niffenator is right when he says it is up to the judge to punish a crime. People may not think the punishment handed out is good enough to punish the murderer for their crime but you have to accept it. To try and get justice in any other way would not be real justice.

I think that a murderer who killed to protect his family (or reasons that we can "understand" or even relate with) should be more readily accepted into society as a "normal" human being, but they must still be kept an eye on, and they deserve the punishment of any other murderer, because that is what they are : a murderer. But after their punishment is served they don't deserve any more prejudice against them, for they have already done their time.

So, in conclusion, Murder is murder in whatever circumstance, and should be treated as such. Murderers should be punished by the justice system not the victims family. But after the punishment is served people who murdered for "understandable" (but not acceptable, that should be pointed out) should be re-intragrated into society.

Now thats my 2 cents


p.s. my first attempt at a reply might of been better than this, but meh

I must strongly object to any form of self defence or protection of family members in a threat situation as being at all murder. Protecting one's family should always be an acceptable application of potential lethal force. That is not murder.

That said I have to agree with 2Quiet that someone who killed out of clear revenge [especially in cases that reasonablily assured that the dead person has created a great offence] that perhaps a lesser sentence should be carried out as the person is really less of a  threat because extremes have driven him/her to that murder. This much like Non-guilty by reasons of Insanity or temporary Insanity except that they are found guilty instead.

[Brick Bungalow]

**warning, increasingly off-topic rant to follow**

I live in the US and my comments are only meant to reflect the laws there.

Sadly, charges and sentences in capital cases are actually much more political and less objective on average than lesser offenses. There is still a high degree of racial preference when it comes to victimns vs. perpetrators rights. Far too much thought is put into satiating the publics percieved demand for vengeance.

If it is determined that a premeditated murder did indeed occur there should be a uniform standard range of sentencing and there simply isn't. Even today, the relative coverage and recompense over, say, the death of a black child versus the death of a white child is shamefully out of balance.

Add that to the ability of the wealthy and connected to skate free when apprehended on any charge short of murder
(or stealing from someone ever richer) and you have a criminal justice system that is a contradiction in terms.

Finally, many of our violent criminals are manufactured by our own system. Juveniles are apprehended with narcotics and placed in a system that teaches them a truly criminal lifestyle.

This might seem confusing until you learn that more and more correctional facilities are privately owned, for-profit enterprises. Party for free labor but also wealthy communities discreetly compensate poorer communities to take undesirables off their hands.

Don't take my word for it. Read and research, find out just how bad it is.

That said, premeditated murder is worse and revenge is not a good reason.

[Calus Drakin]

The thing about it being premeditated is that it's taken time to think out. The whole time the individual knows what they're doing is against the law and either don't care or revel in the fact.

Say someone murdered a member of my family, first is the grieving period where the idea floats into my mind, which could take anywhere from weeks to months, although it could even be a few days. ( I see anything that occurs sooner then that as being caught up in the moment and worthy of an insanity plea. )

After that is the consideration of the method, should you just walk up and shoot them ? Stab them ? Whichever.

Tracking them down. Unless you've been keeping tabs on them ever since this happened, this could take a while too. Weeks, months, even years in some cases. This is particularly bad if you know where he is or how to find him and you say nothing to the police just so you can do it yourself.

Then there's finally the deed itself, which generally would take a couple minutes depending on if you talked to the guy or not.

And finally, what happens afterward ? Call the police and turn yourself in ? Leave the bloody mess and hope you cleaned up your tracks well enough not to be caught ? Arrange it to look like a suicide or something ?

And sure, it's not particularly likely that the scenario that caused these events will happen again, but you have to take into account whether or not the guy is likely to see this as a viable way to do things after having gotten away with it once despite knowing the criminal act it was.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Premeditated murder is murder. It does not matter if you felt there was a just reason to plan and execute the murder of another individual. You are guilty of the crime and should be punished as would any other. Honour killings are abominable and a means of justice we should be moving away from rather than embracing them. The cycle of honour killings never end as the Hatfield-McCoy example illustrates.

The circumstances of an unnatural death are taken into account when sentence is past if there are exterior reasons. An abused spouse killing their other for example. However, if the death is premeditated they are merely a murderer and should be judged as such.

[R Man]

I think the issue is provocation.

For example their are two guys called A and B respectively. A is a good family man but for some reason B decides to start hastling him. At first its just little things but then he starts following A to work and then showing up at his house at night. Perhaps he starts following A's children to work. A calls the police and here's the important part: They do nothing. A has now been abandoned by the law. What recourse does he have? Probably scared out of his mind for his own life and his family's wellbeing. In the end he has had enough and he finds and then kills man B.

In this case is the murder justified? Now very few murders would play out anything like this but I feel there are occasions when murder is understandable though certainly not encouragable.

[The GrimSqueaker]

In this case is the murder justified? Now very few murders would play out anything like this but I feel there are occasions when murder is understandable though certainly not encouragable. 

Understandable does not nullify the crime. Mr. A is still going to be sentenced as someone who committed first degree murder. Which is the way it should be.

[Flonky]

Premeditated murder is murder. It does not matter if you felt there was a just reason to plan and execute the murder of another individual. You are guilty of the crime and should be punished as would any other.

But what if that premeditated murder is performed by a civilian for the great and good. For example a group of travelers might hatch a plan to murder terrorists who are planning to crash the plane they are on.

Ok the weakness in my reasoning is that in some countries this could count as self defence but still - premeditated murder can be good, but it usually ain't.

[The GrimSqueaker]

Just how long is this plane flight for people to have the time for murder plots?    Self defence is separate from premeditated murder. Also, in this situation, potentially lethal force is not the only option available. Considering the more recent "terrorists on the plane" moments we've had where people's imaginations over rule their commonsense, it's certainly best never to entertain such thoughts as murder being an option at all. Flying when brown should never be a death sentence due to people being unable to think further than their badly worded newspaper editorial.

Premeditated murder can never be "good." There are always other options. If anyone tries the "what about killing Hitler?" argument I'm going to laugh at them as a very poor Godwins.

[Flonky]

Just how long is this plane flight for people to have the time for murder plots?

There are instances of passengers on hijacked planes planing to take the plane back. 9/11 for example. While indeed self defence is separate from premeditated murder there is a very blurry line between the two in some circumstances. And sometimes the only feasible and practical way to, lets say, disarm a gunman, is to kill him with a blow to the head - it's way too risky to go for the gun or hit it out of his hand as if you miss...you're dead.

[Full Metal Geneticist]

Just no... Do you know how people react to me on planes? Do you know how often I get searched? Hell I have had more guys hands down my pants this year than women! The last thing I want is after being molested by some moron who thinks he is protecting the plane by searching only brown guys (Thats not a gun in my pants ladies...) is to be beaten up by passengers with home made weapons in a cramped seat just because i spend too long trying to tie a shoe lace...)

Do you even understand how stupid mob mentality is? Do you even know what it is to fly being treated like that and have to smile because no one will sympathise with you? And you really think those people are going to behave with common sense when they believe you are some sort of monster on the basis of the colour of your skin? Someone's going to "plan and kill a sikh guy" because they mistook him for a terrorist.

Actually, the last thing you want to be doing to a gunman is attempting to hit him over the head with something. If the safety is off and he is in a plane, then someone's going to get hurt. OR worse the plane is going to start slowly depressurising. Someone's going to be pissed. You are going to achieve more by slowly talking to the man in a calm manner than going to be hero. Remember most hostage situations have ended peacefully.

And may I remind you how the "attempt to take the plane back" ended? Swan dive into terra firma is not my idea of a success.

[The GrimSqueaker]

And sometimes the only feasible and practical way to, lets say, disarm a gunman, is to kill him with a blow to the head - it's way too risky to go for the gun or hit it out of his hand as if you miss...you're dead.

How many macho movies have you been watching? Blows to the head aren't generally considered to be automatically lethal unless you're playing a video game. If your intent is to disarm someone there is no requirement for the method to involve lethal force. A fatality may certainly occur yet you seem to consider such an ending a foregone conclusion. Even so, this is not premeditated murder by any of the statutes.

[Jehan-Reznor]

Well FMG wearing a white coat to an airport looks suspicoius

And Premeditaded means intent, so yes it is bad, but those on the receiving end do not care if it is premeditad or not they are both dead.
Luckily we have CSI and Bones, who crack any case in 45 minutes from a single particle on the body .

[Flonky]

How many macho movies have you been watching?

Hey, I'm a kid, gimme a break  .

All I'm trying to say is that if premeditated murder is done to save people, alot of people, then it is good. And I don't mean this as in self defence. I mean it as killing a genocidal dictator - or something of the sort.

[Calus Drakin]

Just.....no.

A terrorist on a plane is a completely different subject. I think we're done with going there.

The discussion is premeditated murder Vs. unmeditated murder. Is it worse to plan out how, why, and when to kill someone or is it worse to get caught up in the moment and smash their head repeatedly into a wall/table/door/etc. ?

The answer to THAT question is simple. Yes.

However, we are also bringing up situations where it would be understandable to commit murder. Now, while there are certainly cases where individuals feel they have no choice but to take matters into their own hands, that is really hardly ever the case. If the police officers on patrol don't accomplish things in a timely manner that fits what the guy wants, they have superiors. Then they have superiors. And up the ladder it goes. If you truly believe yourself and your family in danger, then you probably have proof. If you don't have proof, then you're probably being obsessively paranoid and you need mental help.

For instance my neighbors are mexican, thus they automatically have to be illegals and drug dealers and they're waiting for the chance to sneak over and murder me, my family and my pets in our sleep. Therefore, I should go over there and wipe out the whole clan before they can do it. No, that's not how it works, that's Gang mentality people. They COULD do this, so we'll just do it first.

[ I realize I went off on a bit of a rant here and everyone is more then welcome to poke enough holes in my post to make Swiss cheese cry, but lets at least try to get back on topic here and not make this about racism ]

[Xeal]

I'm inclined to agree with Flonky - Just...Flonky, murder isn't as simple as murder, one ruling can't reflect all the circumstances.  I remember the following example from two real cases when i did a-level law:

A woman had a husband.  He kept her locked in one room of the house and beat her regularly, she was kept locked up with no access to the rest of the house so she couldn't tell anyone what has happening, he also had beaten her two kids on several occasions who didn't tell anyone since he had threatened to kill their mum if they did.  In the end she murdered him one night, she admitted to planning to kill him and figuring out how to do it, and succeeded she was given a very heavy sentace.

In comparison there was a case of man who wanted to stalk and then kill someone to see what it felt like.  He stalked his victim for several weeks, and sent messages and threats to them.  This person told the police who actually didn't intervene at all.  The man went ahead and killed his victim.  He confessed to his crime and admitted to stalking an killing someone, now here's the major problem he was given the exact same sentence as the woman in the first case.

OK both were premeditated murder, and both were wrong, but surly the same sentace can't have been justified, one person was committing murder for sheer pleasure while the other was simply trying to defend herself and her children.  Even if we consider other course of action the wife may have taken is nonsense, let's face it all of us (me included) are outsiders, thus have no way to truly reflect upon the emotions of the person in such situations.  It's imple Ivory tower discussion to say there are other options, there are plenty of cases in this country of people going to the police afraid for their lives, taking things as high as they can and still being ignored, only to then have the threat proven true when they are murdered (yet I very rarly see the police locked up for failing to do their jobs).

I believe the name of the crime doesn't represent the crime, premeditate murder is simply what the name says, it gives no more description to the reasons why it happened.  The same way as saying a group of people are rebels merely tells us that they are rebels, not why they are rebelling.  The reasons behind the crime, and the motivations are far more important and also more important in terms of the sentence, the same as the reason a group is rebelling is more important than the fact they are rebels.