+9

Although dealing with this issue is more difficult, I also still keep remembering the question I asked before regarding the requirement of a beyond a reasonable doubt proof in alleged self defense cases. The question is if you accept that a mere  reasonable doubt would prevent incriminate the killer aren't you incriminating the killed based on a mere reasonable doubt? If, for example, you do not incriminate A for killing B based on 20 percent probability that his allegation of being attacked by B  is true aren't you at the same time incriminating B despite 80 percent probability of being innocent of what was alleged against him? 

+8

It is also for the same reason below I never understood the argument questioning trials for Guantanamo detainees in courts here because of the rights the system gives to defendants. Again, there is only one justice and you are walking a fine line. So as much as things are unjustly tilted toward the defendant side they would also affect victims in other cases here.

+7

I just want to tell those who put that "premeditation" requirement suppose that God told you through miracles proving to everyone it is God's order that you should rule on people to the best of your judgment without telling you specifically how to rule and that you will be held responsible for the level of your following to that order. I doubt then that you would still believe in no death sentence on a killer even if there were no questions about the guilt, let alone applying something like that "premeditation" requirement if you really want to follow that order. So if you cant apply that there how can you apply it here? There is only one justice. You need to walk a very fine line because justice is not something for you to add as a style for your identity. 

+6

Too bad with all the complements given in yesterday's state of the union address it was not mentioned that no nation in history was this crazy unjust by choice disregarding the issue of killing people like those in the movie theater, or even further from having any choice to avoid being killed like the children in that school, while giving someone who intentionally chooses to point his gun and shoots to death another parson only a partial punishment because the killing was not "premeditated".

Craziness was not even satisfactory here from one side. No, it gets built in layers. First they give a person a device that allows easy killing like the gun. Then they tell him don't worry even if you suddenly feel the urge to use it and kill someone you wouldn't get the punishment of a real killing.  

+5

It is not even about questioning if bad things the victim had done to the killer in the past should affect the punishment. No, the victim could have had absolutely no guilt toward the killer and still killing that victim cannot bring a punishment more than what is allowed under second degree murder designation unless it was "premeditated".Even if one had lost his sense of justice, doesn't he wonder why did its application throughout history conflict with that? After all it is not like murder is something that was recently discovered as a result of development in technology.

.   

+4

One may expect to see a discrimination based on for example religion, gender, color, but for a person to give himself less rights as a victim than as an aggressor, who can expect that? 

+3

Seriously, things like that, from the post below, in this and other countries following similar systems can hardly be seen by an external observer as being expected or anticipated any more than the actions of a totally insane person could be. That is because even if one can expect violating morality, it is still much harder to imagine somebody choosing other than the just path just for the sake of it and without any seen benefit like this.       

+2

It is far from sounding common sense justice to see that the whole life of a victim who was for example shot to death to be worth only a sentencing of 20 years (and I am probably at the high end of the scale for second degree murder sentencing here), let alone the probability of a parole release, of the shooter's life just because he did not Premeditated  the murder, as long as the shooter did his action by choice and with recognition to its potential consequence. Yesterday, I tried to see what arguments are there in support of such distinction between punishments for Premeditated and non-Premeditated intentional (in the sense described above) killing but I did not find anything worthy of special mention or encouraging for more research in that regard. I started to question how widespread this system which the normal senses seems to contradict could be. So I searched for that in the United Kingdom and guess what? It appears that according to the "English Law" they don't have second degree murder there. Instead, according to THIS they have only murder and manslaughter there and there is nothing in the law preventing killing like the one I described above from getting the same sentencing with or without Premeditation. That fits much better with basic sense of justice for actions that are seen as clearly intentional in the normal sense. The addition of premeditation doesn't need to be necessarily treated different than adding another killing charge to what already should receive the maximum sentencing.

  

+1

I was once flipping through TV channels and paused at a scene from an old western movie in which one man was close to kill another. I felt some comfort in how the reaction of another guy, supported the normal and very basic sense of justice I keep wondering why people strayed  away from. He told the first if you do it I would see that you get hanged for it, or something like that.

He did not tell him I will check and see if you premeditated the killing I will hang you for it. Look how much this feels closer to the self . So where did all those second degree murder laws come from? At least some old arguments suggesting inequality in human blood based on benefit to society and the like, while abhorrent to the senses, had on the face some logical basis for their support. Here, on the other hand, there is nothing except for favoring whoever commits the killing first. I don't understand what kind of sense of justice allows the carrying of the burden of for example somebody's becoming suddenly angry to shoot someone else to death on the victim? Who would have thought that from the old time where the less privileged needed to be seen equal in humanity one day one's need to defend that equality would extend to merely being the victim?