NationStates Jolt Archive

If there are extenuating circumstances you should get a severely reduced sentence, yes, but you should still be punished. So often I hear "Well, he deserved what he got" or "She did the right thing" when people are asked whether a criminal is guilty or innocent. That may be true, but that's not what I asked. That's not what the trial is about. If you're guilty, you're guilty.

Look at the movie Walking Tall for what I'm talking about. The Rock (I say the Rock instead of his characters name since, though it claims to be 'inspired' by a true story, I have no doubt that Star Wars bears a closer resemblance to Romeo & Juliet than the movie does to the original happening) walks into the casino with a two-by-four and proceeds to just beat the shit out of everyone. Now, he was justified. Not only did they give drugs to his nephew, they also used various razors to slice him open from throat to navel. However, he did break the law. You can't just go and put 5 people into the hospital when you want to. He should have gotten a reduced sentence, yes, but he was guilty of the crime he was charged with. Instead, he is aquitted (in the movie I don't think they even gave a reason.)

That was just a movie, but it is an example of what I'm talking about. Laws should not only be enforced when they apply to somebody who does bad things, they have to be enforced for everybody. Otherwise what's the point?

Okay, that was really badly written. I hope what I actually wanted to say goes across. If not, I understand. This was not my best sample of writing.

Our society glorifies violence over the rule of law.

Look at Scarface, The Godfather Trilogy, et al.

Look at the movie Walking Tall for what I'm talking about. The Rock (I say the Rock instead of his characters name since, though it claims to be 'inspired' by a true story, I have no doubt that Star Wars bears a closer resemblance to Romeo & Juliet than the movie does to the original happening) walks into the casino with a two-by-four and proceeds to just beat the shit out of everyone. Now, he was justified. Not only did they give drugs to his nephew, they also used various razors to slice him open from throat to navel. However, he did break the law. You can't just go and put 5 people into the hospital when you want to. He should have gotten a reduced sentence, yes, but he was guilty of the crime he was charged with. Instead, he is aquitted (in the movie I don't think they even gave a reason.) That was just a movie, but it is an example of what I'm talking about. Laws should not only be enforced when they apply to somebody who does bad things, they have to be enforced for everybody. Otherwise what's the point?

Actually it all depends on your community and state on what they think about the crime being permitted (obviously some use capital punishment, some dont)

Here in Eugene about 4 years ago a man walked into a carls jr. and shot and killed a unarmed man in broad daylight sitting and eating at his table. The man sitting at the table had earlier in the day threatened to kill the gun mans daughter if she did not pay her drug debt. The police practically said next time try to find a not so populated place to do it, unless your fear for your daughters life just takes over. All was deemed justified after investigation.

Pretty much what it comes down to is if your a bad guy and someone wants to take you out. To late for forgiveness bad guy. Although I can certainly sympathise with the shooter, I still would of thought about it a little myself. But then again if I had a daughter and someone said such a thing, then it comes down to my daughters life or thier life. Sorry bad guy, decision made.

Here in the US you are not required to call the police when you think someones life or your life is in grave danger until after you secure that life to safety. He removed the threat from the planet and then the workers @ C.Jr's called the police for him.

My mom is being harrassed by some drug infested bitch living upstairs from her because she complained (along with my stepfather) to the landlord (and her as well! - My mom is a tough ol' bird!) because they were making a hell of a lot of noise upstairs for no apparent reason. As a result, they phoned the police on numorous occasions.

This woman threatened my 65 year old mother (a clear sign that she is also a coward!) and tried to break into her appartment while she was asleep at night.

I told my mother this "If she does anything to you, I'll grap one of those big kitchen knives of yours and stick it in an out of her till she a bloody pulp and the floor". She's my mother, she gave me life. Nobody even looks at her funny! Law be damned, it has an alarming tendency to protect criminals more than anything nowadays anyways!

The good new is, is that the pieces of drug infested shit are being evicted at the end of this month.

So Mr. Rock, beat the living shit out of all of them - if you know they did wrong, then my concience is a clear as the blue sky...

let me just say, im proud in that in Canada, our criminal justice system is in place for:

The Safety of society

and not:

The punishment of wrongdoers

I would be much more proud of a society that exists to both make society safe and secure while simultaneously punishing wrong-doers. The two are hardly exclusive, actually they go hand in hand.

Anyways to the original poster, I've always thought that "revenge" crimes should be let off very lightly, if not let off completely. By revenge I don't mean like... shooting someone because he told you you were fat, I mean if they killed your mother or something and you kill them, I don't see why that should be a crime.

IMO, the criminal laws exist to protect the good citizens of society (and to punish those who would harm them). When you become a criminal, then you are no longer a good citizen of society, and thus lose the right to the protection the law offers, although obviously this must be looked at with a case-by-case basis (obviously while a guy who steals toilet paper is a thief, shooting him between the eyes for it isn't really justified)

One note on this: It would NOT turn into like... say two families in a blood feud as happened in the medieval ages. Let's say person A killed someone from person B's family. Person B kill's Person A. Person A's family has no legal right whatsoever to attack Person B for killing Person A, because he was justified in doing so.

IMO, the criminal laws exist to protect the good citizens of society (and to punish those who would harm them). When you become a criminal, then you are no longer a good citizen of society, and thus lose the right to the protection the law offers, although obviously this must be looked at with a case-by-case basis (obviously while a guy who steals toilet paper is a thief, shooting him between the eyes for it isn't really justified)


lol

im glad the supreme courts dont see it that way

let me just say, im proud in that in Canada, our criminal justice system is in place for: The Safety of society and not: The punishment of wrongdoers

I like BC Canada and such to visit but not to live in, just as I imagine many Canadians say about the US... We are just a different kind of people is all. Also as someone else has pointed out, In order to provide safety to society you must punish the wrong doers. So yes they go hand in hand.
When you threaten to take someones life, they have every right to ensure by whatever means allowed by law to ensure that you do not succeed. Phoning the police in the US has been proven to be ineffective for your 100% safety and well being to ones self or family or the endangered, that is why the police allow vigalante justice in proper instances.

Apparently in the carls jr. shooting the father was dazed and was heard saying "so your going to kill my baby girl?" BOOM! "Not anymore." lol It is funny how some people see things. I personally would like to see if at all possible only words then fists be used to settle our differneces until a weapon is the last resort for someones safety (of course unless a weapon will be the only thing keeping that innocent life alive). Then again threats are through perception and we all know not everyone has the same perception on things (a disabled person will see far more as being threats than say a body builder).

(obviously while a guy who steals toilet paper is a thief, shooting him between the eyes for it isn't really justified)

Actually it still would be up to the person being stolen from, doesn't matter if you have been robbed of a penny. If the person doing the robbing is a percieved threat either during or after they get away then you will be able to kill them (hopefully just detain them). Just like in New york city after the MCdonalds massacre. A group of robbers went into a nearby grocery store running off before getting any loot. After speeding away in thier getaway car, the woman (wife of owner of store and South korean immigrants) fired a round at the back of the speeding car. She struck Colin (one of the robbers) in the neck killing him. Investigation insued, ruled justified. This is in New york city, one of the most restrictive city in the US for gun laws. In the US when you rob, if you even say something like "if you dont do as I say I will kill you" then your life is endangered. Now hopefully the person being robbed has enough integrity to not just make it up that the robber said they threatened thier life. Then again its to bad the people doing the robbery dont have enough integrity to do whats right.