AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Zink wrote:What do they call it when a person spontaneously flips out because someone rustled them off or something and proceeds to murder them right then and there? It isn't planned out, but not unintentional either.

That's called a court case.

It'll end up getting classified as either 1st or 3rd degree murder. Obviously the murderer's lawyers will be trying to get it as 3rd degree, because that involves less jailtime.

Often things like the duration of the murder, the way it was committed, etc etc, will be used to determine how the case should be treated. If it involved grabbing a knife and stabbing someone 62 times, it'll get classed as 1st degree. If it involved the person leaving the room, getting a gun, and shooting the person, it'll probably get classed as 1st degree. If the person stabbed the other person once, then freaked out and called the hospital, it might get classified as 3rd degree.

The difference between 1st and 3rd degree in what you described Zink, mostly comes down to "Did the person have time to try and stop the death from occurring?"

Ame no Akai wrote:Jst asking, what would fall under manslaughter?

Two kinds of manslaughter. Voluntary and involuntary.

As I understand it, voluntary is essentially the same as first degree murder, except it qualifies as being justified somehow. For example, someone breaks into your home, you grab a gun and shoot them. You deliberately intended to kill the person, but because they were breaking into your home, it was self-defense. I believe Voluntary Manslaughter is usually "Overkill self defense"

Involuntary is when it happens by accident. Something like, driving down the road in the care and hitting someone who was crossing the road.

The whole point of manslaughter, is it's a step down from murder.

- Most Serious -
First Degree Murder
Second Degree Murder
Third Degree Murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
- Lease Serious -

Ame no Akai wrote:Jst asking, what would fall under manslaughter?

Probably unintentional murder that was committed when not attempting to hurt the victim in any way shape or form.

Miss StarSeed wrote:And why are we all speaking like we personally know the girl who was raped?

You figure it out

Karilyn wrote:So we agree that life in prison is a slower death penalty. Then why not just give them the death penalty? How is it more civilized, or more humane, to sentence someone living in prison until they die? It's still a death penalty.

I was reading through the last few pages of this thread when I saw this post. I agree that it'd be simpler to just quickly kill the people in prison who want to die, or just taking up space for a crime they commited forty years ago or something like that, but what about the people who do get the death penalty and want a slower, more painful death? Like, say, death by firing squad or electrocution as opposed to the needle?

Should they get the choice to get a slower death? Or do you think that the death penalty should be a quick procedure instead of a long drawn-out affair? It seems to me that if someone gets the death penalty, he shouldn't get to choose. He's going to die either way; why all the preperation? And the people on Death row, waiting to die- should they be executed as quickly as possible?

99.99% of the people on Death Row are guilty of what the commited, and aren't wrongly accused. While it is true that once in a blue moon something like that happens, the chance is so small that it's irrelevent. I believe the people on Death Row should be killed as quickly as possible. It doesn't sound very humane, but it wasn't humane of them to commit the crime they commited to get there.

BANANA wrote:Stuff

I think it many of the American States that have the death penalty, Death Row inmates are given the option to chose which method will be used to end their life, and if they decline that option, it defaults to whatever the judge says. In America nowadays, that is typically lethal injection, basically euthanization.

Miss StarSeed wrote:Still though, I'm curious why the only options in this argument seem to either be letting him go without any punishment, life in prison, or immediate death (as in death penalty, versus rotting away and most likely being tortured by other inmates in prison)?

Because... well, there's no point on a middle ground. Either a child rapist is always the same for life, or he's already well past the point of reform.

Miss StarSeed wrote:And why are we all speaking like we personally know the girl who was raped? What if our opinions (if by some miracle, actually mattered and reached her) opened up old wounds for her and she had to go through the healing process all over again?

Well, we're not really arguing about this case alone, it's more of the general principal of the matter. And we're certainly not going to shut up about something just because someone, somewhere, might get offended by it; that's utterly preposterous!

Karilyn wrote:

Miss StarSeed wrote:And why are we all speaking like we personally know the girl who was raped?

You figure it out

My first thought was you were raped, which makes this really awkward...

Karilyn wrote:

BANANA wrote:Stuff

I think it many of the American States that have the death penalty, Death Row inmates are given the option to chose which method will be used to end their life, and if they decline that option, it defaults to whatever the judge says. In America nowadays, that is typically lethal injection, basically euthanization.

That's not what I asked; I asked if the convicted should have the right to choose, as opposed to death penalty automatically = lethal injection.

Karilyn wrote: First Degree Murder = Planned and thought out and prepared murder (Example: poisoning)

Second Degree Murder = Unintentional murder that occurred during the commitment of another crime (Example: home burglary)
Third Degree Murder = Unintentional murder that occurred while attempting to harm the victim, but not kill them (Example: overaggressive spousal abuse)

450 degrees farenheit murder: Let bake for 8 minutes.

BANANA wrote:99.99% of the people on Death Row are guilty of what the commited, and aren't wrongly accused. While it is true that once in a blue moon something like that happens, the chance is so small that it's irrelevent. I believe the people on Death Row should be killed as quickly as possible. It doesn't sound very humane, but it wasn't humane of them to commit the crime they commited to get there.

No, 90% of people are guilty! Calculate it! 1,175 executed, 135 found innocent! And one in every 10 is a VERY large chance!

scebboaliwiw wrote: 450 degrees farenheit murder: Let bake for 8 minutes.

+1

Plasma wrote: Because... well, there's no point on a middle ground. Either a child rapist is always the same for life, or he's already well past the point of reform.

That's the same point twice... If he's always the same, he can't be reformed. Did you word that wrong and there's only one point, or did I read it wrong?

Miss StarSeed wrote:And why are we all speaking like we personally know the girl who was raped? What if our opinions (if by some miracle, actually mattered and reached her) opened up old wounds for her and she had to go through the healing process all over again?

Plasma wrote:And we're certainly not going to shut up about something just because someone, somewhere, might get offended by it; that's utterly preposterous!

Well clarifying we're not focusing specifically on the one case makes it a little different, but you still came across as a heartless dick by refering to "experience the same feelings as you did when you were raped/realized you were raped" to simply being offended... Those feelings aren't even in the same ball park.

Miss StarSeed wrote:

Plasma wrote: Because... well, there's no point on a middle ground. Either a child rapist is always the same for life, or he's already well past the point of reform.

That's the same point twice... If he's always the same, he can't be reformed. Did you word that wrong and there's only one point, or did I read it wrong?

He goofed what he meant to say.

Plasma's argument for several pages now is that child rapists absolutely will not under any circumstance drug and rape another child as long as you slap them on the hand, and explain to them that it is against the law.

Ame no Akai wrote:There was this story about a guy (who lived in a blue world) who had been on Death Row for years. He claimed innocence, but he was still convicted. After many long years, there was new evidence or something to that effect and he was declared innocent.

This man could have died innocent. You can bet he's not the only innocent man on Death Row. Is it really worth killing some mass murderer if it means killing an innocent man too?

What Ame just said is the reason a lot of countries/whatever don't do executions anymore.


Reasonable doubt.

Plasma wrote:

BANANA wrote:99.99% of the people on Death Row are guilty of what the commited, and aren't wrongly accused. While it is true that once in a blue moon something like that happens, the chance is so small that it's irrelevent. I believe the people on Death Row should be killed as quickly as possible. It doesn't sound very humane, but it wasn't humane of them to commit the crime they commited to get there.

No, 90% of people are guilty! Calculate it! 1,175 executed, 135 found innocent! And one in every 10 is a VERY large chance!

The court system should figure that out beforehand. When people get sent to Death Row, there needs to be absolute certainty that they commited it. But of course, it's impossible for it to be absolute. Also, calculation don't really figure into this. If I were to line up ten death row inmates right now and ask God himself if they're beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty, it's an extremely low chance that any of them are actually innocent.