In addition to already having difficulties accepting all these first and second and the like of murder classes, I just noticed this about the premeditation requirement for a first degree murder charge.
Is the absence of what fits the premeditation requirement always makes the crime deserves better response for the guilty? What if the reason for the absence of that legal premeditation was being in a careless state? Should the premeditation be taken into consideration when there is a proven absence of what could have caused a momentarily decision? Why would killing with careless/playful mind set deserves less than the maximum punishment? Is there not enough signs for the system being abused because of not taking account of that?
It already was very far from justice to punish a killer with less than being killed just because he killed his victim in anger. So what does doing that for killing with a careless/playful state of mind take things?
How can things get better with these kind of laws that allow escaping responsibility for one's own action and shifting it on the victim instead. Why do laws here compensate the guilty and punish the victim?
No comments:
Post a Comment