Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Silver

Judge says murder is OK if you're a religious nutter

America's abortion debate was ignited again yesterday after a judge decided to allow the man who killed an abortion doctor in front of 250 people to make a 'necessity defence' in court.

Anti-abortionist Scott Roeder will be allowed to testify that he believed he was saving unborn children when he gunned down Dr George Tiller in a Kansas church last May, Judge Warren Wilbert ruled yesterday


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/w...make-necessity-defence-court.html


.
Samuel Vimes

Re: Judge says murder is OK if you're a religious nutter

Silver wrote:
America's abortion debate was ignited again yesterday after a judge decided to allow the man who killed an abortion doctor in front of 250 people to make a 'necessity defence' in court.

Anti-abortionist Scott Roeder will be allowed to testify that he believed he was saving unborn children when he gunned down Dr George Tiller in a Kansas church last May, Judge Warren Wilbert ruled yesterday


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/w...make-necessity-defence-court.html


.


In point of fact the judge in this case has not said "murder is OK if you're a religious nutter". If he had expressed such an opinion then I'm sure that the prosecution team would have seen to it that he was removed from presiding over the case.

All he has done is allow a particular defence argument to be used. This does not mean that this defence will be successful nor that the verdict has been affected in any way.
Silver

If a judge allows a defence of justifiable homicide based on aborted foetuses, then surely he accepts it is an acceptable defence so will support it when the man pleads it?
Judders Lady...

Re: Judge says murder is OK if you're a religious nutter

Silver wrote:
America's abortion debate was ignited again yesterday after a judge decided to allow the man who killed an abortion doctor in front of 250 people to make a 'necessity defence' in court.

Anti-abortionist Scott Roeder will be allowed to testify that he believed he was saving unborn children when he gunned down Dr George Tiller in a Kansas church last May, Judge Warren Wilbert ruled yesterday


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/w...make-necessity-defence-court.html


.


Silver,

Are you reading what you write?

Why you view this as being a religious thing, I am not sure.
What this man did belies the truth of what he claimed to believe.
If life had been so precious he would never have killed the doctor.

A woman has right over her own body and whatever they believe to be a sin or not. It is the right of every human being to use their free will.
Though they may use it, it won't always make it right.
By that I mean the use of free will to commit murder is wrong.

This man should be treated no differently because of his beliefs.
He should be treated as any man who deliberately and without any remorse took a persons life. The crime was premeditated and committed in cold blood. No excuse for such evil.

Love xx

trentvoyager

Quote:
This man should be treated no differently because of his beliefs.
He should be treated as any man who deliberately and without any remorse took a persons life. The crime was premeditated and committed in cold blood. No excuse for such evil.


Doesn't get said often enough.  
Dave B

Quote:
This man should be treated no differently because of his beliefs.
He should be treated as any man who deliberately and without any remorse took a persons life. The crime was premeditated and committed in cold blood. No excuse for such evil.
Yup, I'll go for that as well.
Samuel Vimes

Silver wrote:
If a judge allows a defence of justifiable homicide based on aborted foetuses, then surely he accepts it is an acceptable defence so will support it when the man pleads it?


No.

All it means is that they accept that it is reasonable to allow the defence counsel to make the case for a "necessity defence"

It doesn't mean that the judge accepts that it was the case or that this defence is necessarily going to be successful though.

If your logic were correct then any judge that allows a plea of "not guilty" is prejudging the outcome of the trial in the defendants favour.

This is patently ridiculous.
Judders Lady...

trentvoyager wrote:
Quote:
This man should be treated no differently because of his beliefs.
He should be treated as any man who deliberately and without any remorse took a persons life. The crime was premeditated and committed in cold blood. No excuse for such evil.


Doesn't get said often enough.  


It is only truth.
I cannot see how any honest person could disagree.





Dave B wrote:
Quote:
This man should be treated no differently because of his beliefs.
He should be treated as any man who deliberately and without any remorse took a persons life. The crime was premeditated and committed in cold blood. No excuse for such evil.
Yup, I'll go for that as well.


Agreeing three times in one night? Do we have a record?
 

Love.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
This man should be treated no differently because of his beliefs.
He should be treated as any man who deliberately and without any remorse took a persons life. The crime was premeditated and committed in cold blood. No excuse for such evil.


Actually, I'll join in here too, just for the sheer novelty of saying this; well said Lynne, you hit the nail on the head there.


Now I feel dirty ...
T8-eh-T8

Another (dull) legal aspect on this. If the defendant makes his plea and is then found guilty, this then becomes part of the law of precedent which can then be referred back to for any future cases and summarily dismissed as a defence.

However, the opposite is also true. If the defendant is found not guilty with this defence then future similar cases have precedent on their side. However it would seem an unlikely outcome IMV, unless there is a technicality of US law which we do not appreciate.
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
If the defendant makes his plea and is then found guilty, this then becomes part of the law of precedent which can then be referred back to for any future cases and summarily dismissed as a defence.

However, the opposite is also true. If the defendant is found not guilty with this defence then future similar cases have precedent on their side.


Someone told me that precedent is less significant in the US legal system than it is in ours, but I've no idea to what extent that is true.
T8-eh-T8

Well it is a barbaric judiciary, so who knows?

Perhaps they will grow, as they have so far, into something resembling a civilisation.
Leonard James

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
If the defendant makes his plea and is then found guilty, this then becomes part of the law of precedent which can then be referred back to for any future cases and summarily dismissed as a defence.

However, the opposite is also true. If the defendant is found not guilty with this defence then future similar cases have precedent on their side.


Someone told me that precedent is less significant in the US legal system than it is in ours, but I've no idea to what extent that is true.

I think such a law is idiotic, since it assumes that the first incidence must be right. No judicial ruling is infallible.
Judders Lady...

T8-eh-T8 wrote:
Another (dull) legal aspect on this. If the defendant makes his plea and is then found guilty, this then becomes part of the law of precedent which can then be referred back to for any future cases and summarily dismissed as a defence.

However, the opposite is also true. If the defendant is found not guilty with this defence then future similar cases have precedent on their side. However it would seem an unlikely outcome IMV, unless there is a technicality of US law which we do not appreciate.


But only on points of law used during the defence or prosecution of a case.
It is always a point of law which the Judge will direct the Jury on.
The main argument is to prove the offenders guilt.
If guilt cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt then the defendant will be found 'not guilty' but Jurors are not without their own prejudices.

A judge must direct the Jury only on the basis of the evidence set before them. Mitigating circumstances will be looked upon differently by Jurors.
So whilst an argument used as a defence may fail in one trial the actual evidence of another case may actually cause a different result in another trial.

It is a sad but true fact that innocent people get found guilty in courts and it stands to reason that the opposite also happens. Guilty people will be found innocent. The outcome relies on two things. The actual evidence and the prejudice of the Jurors.

A Precedent does not always become the rule.
Allowing evidence to be submitted on a point of law or disregarding of evidence of a point of law can lose or win a case for either side.
It is ultimately the facts in a case which set the precedent.

Love.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

LJ,

Quote:
I think such a law is idiotic, since it assumes that the first incidence must be right. No judicial ruling is infallible.


If we don't assume that the first incident is right then what did we put the first person in prison for?  You can't have two people committing the same crime, one doing time and one getting off; that would certainly make the law a farce.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
LJ,

Quote:
I think such a law is idiotic, since it assumes that the first incidence must be right. No judicial ruling is infallible.


If we don't assume that the first incident is right then what did we put the first person in prison for?  You can't have two people committing the same crime, one doing time and one getting off; that would certainly make the law a farce.


The law is not perfect without truth.

The real injustice is when innocent people go to prison and guilty people walk free. But as humans it is necessary to set precedents and to take all the evidence into account.

Two men commit murder. One man has seen his child murdered and too late to save the child murders the person who did it.
The second man had too much to drink and violent by nature, attacks a passerby in the street and kills them.
Do you believe there is no difference between the actions of these two men? They both took a life but should compassion be shown to any of them?

Love.xx
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
Two men commit murder. One man has seen his child murdered and too late to save the child murders the person who did it.
The second man had too much to drink and violent by nature, attacks a passerby in the street and kills them.
Do you believe there is no difference between the actions of these two men? They both took a life but should compassion be shown to any of them?


That is clearly not the same crime; the first man in your example is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.  Even if both were found guilty of murder the circumstances will be taken into account with the sentencing.
Judders Lady...

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
Quote:
Two men commit murder. One man has seen his child murdered and too late to save the child murders the person who did it.
The second man had too much to drink and violent by nature, attacks a passerby in the street and kills them.
Do you believe there is no difference between the actions of these two men? They both took a life but should compassion be shown to any of them?


That is clearly not the same crime; the first man in your example is probably guilty of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.  Even if both were found guilty of murder the circumstances will be taken into account with the sentencing.


Both ended up with two men who took the lives of two other men.
Murder is by law...is to take another persons life. Whether by intent to take the life or just cause serious injury to life or limb which results in death. There does not have to be any forethought or even intended Malice for a person to be charged with murder. The same sentence is life imprisonment. One might serve the full maximum sentence without parole or reprieve. Whilst the other one might serve a lesser sentence with parole being made an early possibility. They can charge him with manslaughter if they can prove he acted with diminished responsibility.

At the end of the day the crime is still murder whether intended or not.

Love.xx  
Pukon_the_Treen

At the end of the day you are wrong and should read up on the differences between involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, first degree murder and second degree murder.

Murder, as defined in common law countries, is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent (or malice aforethought), and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter).

(wikipedia)
Ketty

Puke, do we have degrees of murder in the UK?  I think we should, btw, but don't we simply have manslaughter or murder?
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
I think we should, btw, but don't we simply have manslaughter or murder?


You are right, we don't have first and second degree murder in this country; I didn't know that. Both have malice aforethought, but first degree murder is planned and deliberate whereas second degree is spur of the moment.  Seems to be a useful distinction to me.
Ketty

Pukon_the_Treen wrote:
 Seems to be a useful distinction to me.


Me too.

In the UK, I think that's perhaps supposed to be the difference between murder (pre-meditated/planned) and manslaughter (spur of the moment/no planning involved).  Although not set in law, I'm certain there are some degrees in between when taking into account the mitigating circumstances.  BBC have an article:  How do you grade murder?

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum