Murder Sentencing

[Danoff]

Is there a such thing as a crime of passion? This is a defense used to reduce a 2nd degree murder charge(???) to a charge of manslaughter. If it is successfully argued in court that the person commiting the murder was in such a state of shock that they could not be completely accountable for their actions it can reduce a life sentence to a 20-30 year sentence. (<- please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this)

The crime of passion argument applies in lots of different circumstances. I happen to think that it makes a lot of sense.

This argument is used in court to distinguish between an individual who is very dangerous to society because he murders someone that he was in an argument with, or that was in his way while he was stealing a car, from a person who goes and finds his wifes killer and offs him. It shows a different level of respect for human life.

There is, of course, another type of murder which is premeditated. That carries an even stiffer penalty I believe. I'm not completely sure if it carries a harsher penalty than the muder of an individual in the process of commiting a felony.


So what do you think? Is all murder the same? Is the crime of passion defense a crock?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

I believe in post tromatic moments of insanity......

No,.. not all murder is the same IMO.

 

[milefile]

If it was on purpose it is murder. It oght to be as simple as that. If you're so weak and volatile that you can kill somebody because they hurt your feelings or pissed you off, you very well might do it again. In fact these so-called crimes of passion seem more dangerous than premeditated murder. They are certainly less predictable.

Self defense and accidental killings are different and do probably deserve all sorts of consideration. But if you intentionally kill another human being under any circumstances you have made your decision, chosen your fate. You deserve no second chance because your victim gets no second chance.

 

[Danoff]

crimes of passion seem more dangerous than premeditated murder

The difference here is between a person who is in a state of shock of the kind that a person experiences only a handful of times in their life, and a person who has come to the logical conclusion that they should kill another human being.

The threat to society is greater from the mind that decides that the logical thing to do is too kill another person.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by danoff


The threat to society is greater from the mind that decides that the logical thing to do is too kill another person.

I'm not sure that's the case. This is more predictable and preventable, no? The person who can be set off at any time, without warning, seems to be quite dangerous. If they did it once they could do it again. I'm not convinced one is more dangerous to society than the other. I think legal precedent harbors a bias based on something old and moralistic. Of course if legal precedent is supposed to uphold morality, then there's nothing wrong with that.

Getting so angry that you loose control and kill someone, unless is was an accident, is to me, no different than if you thought about it for a month beforehand.

It could be an accident if there was a real possibility that your victim would've only been hurt, and it can be proven that this was your intent. If you shoot someone or push them off a tall building there is very little doubt that you meant to kill them. If you beat someone with an object you might have only wanted to inflict harm, which is not as bad as killing. Intent should be more important in murder cases. And just because you feel remorse doesn't change what you did. You're not being tried for how you feel now, but for what you did then. It is an objective, unchangeable event.

The entire idea of "temporary insanity", which is all a so-called crime of passion is, is suspect to me. I remember when Jeffery Dahmer was on trial and the controversy surrounding the consequences of his being found insane or not. I couldn't believe is was even debated. Obviously he was deeply insane. And yet to maneuver around and/or exploit legal precedent, the most obvious thing in the world became a debatable issue.

 

[Danoff]

Your argument is reasonable, but I want to get more into the details to explain why I find the crime of passion defense to be just - later though. For the moment I want to clear something up.

Getting so angry that you loose control and kill someone,

You make it sound like someone with a bad temper. What we're considering here are serious circumstances... the killer has just found out that the person he killed has killed his wife... or somethig to that effect.

We're also not talking about something that gets the person off, we're talking about a sentence reduction from life in prison to 10-20 or something like that. It's still serious time for a crime that might have been totally justified.

 

[westside]

Just to clarify the homicide distinctions:

First degree murder means you intentionally killed someone and it was either premeditated (you thought about it for a month, you planned it, you had time to change your mind and you didn’t), or you did it while you were committing a felony (rape, arson, armed robbery). This is the only crime that can get you the death penalty.

Second degree murder means you intentionally killed someone but it wasn’t premeditated. Many crimes of passion actually get this conviction instead of the lighter one (manslaughter) because you have to have a damn good excuse to be passionate enough to kill someone. So if someone insults you and you get mad and shoot them without thinking, that’s second degree murder.

Voluntary manslaughter means you intentionally killed someone in the heat of passion, and the court decided it was somewhat understandable. Examples are the sudden discovery of adultery, witnessing injury or serious abuse to a family member, illegal arrest, and some others.

Involuntary manslaughter means you killed someone accidentally, maybe while driving drunk.

Then there are the defenses – self defense, duress, insanity, that can acquit you of any of the above crimes.

I think these distinctions make sense (except I would probably add the potential for the death penalty for second degree murder too). I think the premeditated murderer is very dangerous to society because he had a chance to repent and chose not to. The passionate or spur-of-the-moment killer had no chance to change his mind. The kinds of passion that the court recognizes for voluntary manslaughter are very serious, and not likely to happen to the same person more than once – so this kind of killer is unlikely to kill again. How many times in your life do you come across your spouse in bed cheating on you?

Whether you agree with these distinctions and with the sentencing (death penalty) depends on what you think the criminal justice system is supposed to do – punish people for their moral wrongdoing? Protect society? Deter future crime? Rehabilitate the criminal?

 

[boombexus]

I think that the "crime of passion" argument makes a lot of sense as well.
If someone killed my wife and newborn child in cold blood, I would really want to hunt down the person who did it and kill them myself. After all, that person took away my world and the things that I love and hold dear.
When something of that magnitude happens to an individual, a individual that would normally be a law abiding citizen and one that would never see murdering someone as a viable option, a crime of passion really seems to fit better than first degree murder, and I'm glad that the courts can discern between the two.

If I did go out and kill the person responsible, I would certainly be guilty of a heanous crime and I think that I should be punished accordingly. But I don't think that one should suffer the same punishment as an indiscriminate killer in such a situation.
The pain and rage of suffering through an event like having your family killed in cold blood would definately be cause for extenuating circumstances.

 

[Klostrophobic]

First degree murder - Lethal Injection/life in jail (Unless you're a celebrity)
Second degree murder - life in jail (Unless you're a celebrity)
Manslaughter - Depends on the situation. If you're drunk and you kill someone you should get a much stiffer penalty than if youran someone over on a pitch black street. (Unless you're a celebrity)

If you are insane, you go to an insane asylum (or whatever the hell they call them) for the rest of your life.

If you legitimately kill someone in self defense you should be given a medal. I disagree with Boomie on "crime of passion murders." If you kill someone voluntarily you get life in jail or you die. Simple.

Lethal injection makes a lot of sense because the government doesn't have to pay for meals and other expenses to support a murderer.

Of course, this all changed when you have lots of money/fame.

 

[jay wilkie]

It's a very complicated one this one. The brains is a complex organ but I think it has become too easy for people to say, "well I was SO upset that I lost my way of thinking". If your boss denied you of the pay rise you had been working So hard for, and then blatently refused to give you it, would you get away with giving him a good kick in the teeth by saying : well I sort of lost my way of thinking for a moment..

NO you would get fired. And this is only a job we are talking about.. Surely we should be even more strict when it comes to murder. Why should you get away with murder when you wouldn't get away with kicking your boss in the teeth? (sorry about the example here, but I hope you know what Iam meaning)

 

[jay wilkie]

Just one question although it's a bit off topic; Why do they steralize the area of the arm that they are about to insert the needle when performing the lethal injection? Are they afraid he might get a bit of infection in his last moments on this planet?

 

[Danoff]

If you kill someone voluntarily you get life in jail or you die. Simple.

Boom saved me the trouble of arguing why the sentencing should be different for someone who was avenging the death of loved ones (manslaughter) vs. someone who killed another person because they lost their temper (2nd degree murder).


Thanks to Westside for clearing that up. We needed some facts.

 

[Klostrophobic]

I disagree. If you avenge someone's death with another murder, you're still committing voluntary murder.

 

[milefile]

But it's okay because you're just so really super duper pissed off.

 

[Danoff]

If you avenge someone's death with another murder, you're still committing voluntary murder.

Different methods and reasoning for the same crime make you more or less dangerous to society.

 

[milefile]

But it's okay because you're just so really super duper pissed off.

Different methods and reasoning for the same crime make you more or less dangerous to society.

Besides tone and vocabulary, what is the difference between these two statements?

 

[Danoff]

The phrase "pissed off", and the word "ok".