|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 10:46:29 GMT -6
Please feel free, I'd prefer no part in such preposterous position. If killing a man is an appropriate, morally-justified response to a crime, it cannot be inappropriate or immoral to do anything else to him. If a state has the moral authority to kill, it has the moral authority to do anything. For those who believe it does, it's only a question of when to use it. Correct. Which is why the stance of most pros is hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 30, 2011 10:47:03 GMT -6
Luckily, you aren't strange yourself What do you mean? I work very hard at being strange. Felix and I attend the meetings every week. ;D
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 10:48:10 GMT -6
It's not something I would do. I was saying I wouldn't mind living next to someone whose lawful, legitimate profession was to penetrate the bodies of certain convicts. No that is not what you said. You said in post #48 that you wouldn't mind and that a job is a job. Go read it yourself. Oh Stormy. Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be one of your strengths.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 10:49:35 GMT -6
Luckily, you aren't strange yourself What do you mean? I work very hard at being strange. Felix and I attend the meetings every week. ;D I guess meeting Felix once a week would make anyone strange
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 10:51:00 GMT -6
Yes killing is killing but murder is murder and all killing is not murder nor is all murder done in a tortuous manner though some is. I think that I would find it much easier to die by lethal injection than to know I was going to be dragged behind a vehicle or having my throat slashed. Torturing someone is a crime in itelf, with its own punishment. My problem with case-by-case sentencing is that you're telling people how you want them to murder. Considering that most murderers don't think they'll be caught, I wonder whether your concern is realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 30, 2011 10:51:37 GMT -6
Yes killing is killing but murder is murder and all killing is not murder nor is all murder done in a tortuous manner though some is. I think that I would find it much easier to die by lethal injection than to know I was going to be dragged behind a vehicle or having my throat slashed. Torturing someone is a crime in itelf, with its own punishment. My problem with case-by-case sentencing is that you're telling people how you want them to murder. I don't like case scenario or mitigating circumstances circus. But right now it is part of the law and even with LWOP were the only sentencing there is no guarantee those will disappear.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 30, 2011 10:53:44 GMT -6
No that is not what you said. You said in post #48 that you wouldn't mind and that a job is a job. Go read it yourself. Oh Stormy. Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. He said he wouldn't mind and a job is a job. He didn't say he wouldn't do it until a later post.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 30, 2011 10:55:33 GMT -6
Yes killing is killing but murder is murder and all killing is not murder nor is all murder done in a tortuous manner though some is. I think that I would find it much easier to die by lethal injection than to know I was going to be dragged behind a vehicle or having my throat slashed. Torturing someone is a crime in itelf, with its own punishment. My problem with case-by-case sentencing is that you're telling people how you want them to murder. So, If I wanted to whack someone myself, gee I will get rid of them the right way to murder and only spend say 15 yrs in prison. The other chump( murderer) will get life or the DP he murdered the wrong way by law.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 10:56:17 GMT -6
Oh Stormy. Reading comprehension doesn't appear to be one of your strengths. He said he wouldn't mind and a job is a job. He didn't say he wouldn't do it until a later post. I understood his "wouldn't mind" post differently but I'm sure he will clarify this for us
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Sept 30, 2011 12:15:21 GMT -6
Would the rape be part of imprisonment or in lieu of imprisonment? If the former, I wouldn't be opposed to it. Of course, there is no way it would fly under the Constitution. That said, I think most citizens know what awaits numerous prisoners in the Big House, and many are willing to allow amateurs to do on the down-low what we cannot hire professionals to do openly. Well you sure have me beat with that. Let's move back to killing murderers. Do you think it is just that the mother of the murderer should lose a son when she has not herself taken anyone's son? How is that 'justice'? A mother does not have the right not to have her son killed. Indeed, I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but a mother's rights are not violated when her child is murdered. The right to life is personal, and no one has a right to a life that is not her own. True, sometimes MVS can file wrongful death lawsuits. But that is not a criminal matter, and is more about a family member pursuing the victim's rights on behalf of a victim who is no longer alive to do so himself. So a mother whose child has been murdered has not had her own rights violated. Likewise, if justice is about avenging rights violations, the mother whose son was wrongfully juiced would not suffer a personal injustice because it was not her own right to life that was infringed.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 30, 2011 12:28:29 GMT -6
So, If I wanted to whack someone myself, gee I will get rid of them the right way to murder and only spend say 15 yrs in prison. The other chump( murderer) will get life or the DP he murdered the wrong way by law. That's what I'm saying. We're not telling people "thou shalt not murder." We're saying, "if you do murder, please murder this way, and not that way."
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 12:28:41 GMT -6
Well you sure have me beat with that. Let's move back to killing murderers. Do you think it is just that the mother of the murderer should lose a son when she has not herself taken anyone's son? How is that 'justice'? A mother does not have the right not to have her son killed. Indeed, I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but a mother's rights are not violated when her child is murdered. The right to life is personal, and no one has a right to a life that is not her own. True, sometimes MVS can file wrongful death lawsuits. But that is not a criminal matter, and is more about a family member pursuing the victim's rights on behalf of a victim who is no longer alive to do so himself. So a mother whose child has been murdered has not had her own rights violated. Likewise, if justice is about avenging rights violations, the mother whose son was wrongfully juiced would not suffer a personal injustice because it was not her own right to life that was infringed. What about maintenance/child support claims made by family members in their own names? What about damages for pain and suffering made by family members in their own names, or don't you have such damages in the US?
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 12:31:27 GMT -6
So, If I wanted to whack someone myself, gee I will get rid of them the right way to murder and only spend say 15 yrs in prison. The other chump( murderer) will get life or the DP he murdered the wrong way by law. That's what I'm saying. We're not telling people "thou shalt not murder." We're saying, "if you do murder, please murder this way, and not that way." Which is why there should be mandatory LWOP for all murderers and they should be housed in maximum security units (because I agree that costs should not be relevant).
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 30, 2011 12:36:20 GMT -6
Considering that most murderers don't think they'll be caught, I wonder whether your concern is realistic. That would be true of anyone contemplating a felony. S/he figures committing the crime is worth the risk. The murder rate here is about 6 per 100,000, which translates to about 1 in 16,000 of us will murder, or has murdered, someone this year. Murder laws and/or social opprobrium already deter 15,999 out of 16,000 people from committing murder. The question is how do the law-abiding get through to that one person who needs further inducements not to murder. How does a society make sure THAT person gets the message? Other than to threaten swift, unflinching, draconian punishment, I don't know how.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 12:39:02 GMT -6
Considering that most murderers don't think they'll be caught, I wonder whether your concern is realistic. That would be true of anyone contemplating a felony. S/he figures committing the crime is worth the risk. The murder rate here is about 6 per 100,000, which translates to about 1 in 16,000 of us will murder, or has murdered, someone this year. Murder laws and/or social opprobrium already deter 15,999 out of 16,000 people from committing murder. The question is how do the law-abiding get through to that one person who needs further inducements not to murder. How does a society make sure THAT person gets the message? Other than to threaten swift, unflinching, draconian punishment, I don't know how. So you still think that we'd all be murdering eachother without laws expressly fobidding this?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 30, 2011 12:45:10 GMT -6
He said he wouldn't mind and a job is a job. He didn't say he wouldn't do it until a later post. I understood his "wouldn't mind" post differently but I'm sure he will clarify this for us Well I went back and read it. I guess he meant he wouldn't mind living next do to someone who would rape professionally. I guess the job is a job threw me a little. Still to live next door to someone who did a job like this for a living and enjoyed it. Sick sick sick!
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Sept 30, 2011 12:52:50 GMT -6
A mother does not have the right not to have her son killed. Indeed, I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but a mother's rights are not violated when her child is murdered. The right to life is personal, and no one has a right to a life that is not her own. True, sometimes MVS can file wrongful death lawsuits. But that is not a criminal matter, and is more about a family member pursuing the victim's rights on behalf of a victim who is no longer alive to do so himself. So a mother whose child has been murdered has not had her own rights violated. Likewise, if justice is about avenging rights violations, the mother whose son was wrongfully juiced would not suffer a personal injustice because it was not her own right to life that was infringed. What about maintenance/child support claims made by family members in their own names? What about damages for pain and suffering made by family members in their own names, or don't you have such damages in the US? Many do. It differs by state, but maintenance/child support is not about a right to anther's life. It is about one partner not having to shoulder the financial burden by herself when she contributed to the family (although perhaps not financially) and, in the case of child support, the father helped bring the kid into the world. It is also true that sometimes family members can recover damages for pain and suffering. This was not the case in the common law, however. legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/p/Wrongful%20DeathIf a person is killed because of the wrongful conduct of a person or persons, the decedent's heirs and other beneficiaries may file a wrongful death action against those responsible for the decedent's death. This area of Tort Law is governed by statute. Wrongful death statutes vary from state to state, but in general they define who may sue for wrongful death and what, if any, limits may be applied to an award of damages.
Originally, wrongful death statutes were created to provide financial support for widows and orphans and to motivate people to exercise care to prevent injuries. A wrongful death action is separate and apart from criminal charges, and neither proceeding affects nor controls the other. This means that a defendant acquitted of murder may be sued in a civil action by the victim's family for wrongful death.
An action for wrongful death may be brought for either an intentional or unintentional act that causes an injury that results in death. A blow to the head during an altercation that later results in death is an injury that is intentionally caused. The driver of an automobile who unintentionally causes the death of another in an accident may be held liable for Negligence. An individual who, in violation of local law, neglects to enclose a swimming pool in his yard can be held liable for the omission or failure to act if a child is attracted to the pool and subsequently drowns.
Wrongful death statutes do not apply to an unborn fetus, as an individual does not have a distinct legal status until he is born alive. If an infant is born alive and later dies as a result of an injury that occurred prior to birth, an action may be brought for wrongful death.
Who May Sue
The individuals entitled to sue for wrongful death are enumerated in each state statute. Many statutes provide for recovery by a surviving spouse, next of kin, or children. Some states permit a surviving spouse to bring an action even in the event of a separation, but not if the surviving spouse was guilty of desertion or failure to provide support.
Ordinarily, children may bring suit for the wrongful death of their parents, and parents may sue for the wrongful death of their children. In some states, only minor children are allowed to sue for the death of a parent. Similarly, some state statutes preclude a parent from recovery for the death of an adult child who is financially independent or married.
Immunity from Suit
In the absence of a legal exception, the surviving beneficiaries may sue any person who caused the injuries that precipitated the death.
A traditional exception to this rule has been applied to family members. This doctrine is known as family immunity and means that an individual is protected from suit by any member of his family. This rule was intended to promote family harmony and to prevent family members from conspiring to defraud an insurance company. However, its strict application prevented children from legitimately collecting insurance money. Therefore, many states have discarded the strict rule of family immunity. Some limitations have been retained, such as allowing an adult child to sue a parent but not allowing a minor child to do so.
Wrongful death actions filed against state or local government will be allowed to go forward only if the state has waived its Sovereign Immunity, a doctrine that bars lawsuits against the government. Since the 1960s a majority of states have relinquished the right to claim sovereign immunity in many instances. Therefore, if a child drowns in a municipal swimming pool, the parents may be able to sue the city for wrongful death based on negligence.
In states that allow wrongful death actions to be brought against government, there is generally a strict notice requirement. The plaintiff must promptly notify the government that a lawsuit is contemplated in order to give the government an opportunity to estimate the potential losses to its budget. The time period for filing a notice may be as short as 30, 60, or 90 days. Failure to file a notice of claim precludes the possibility of a lawsuit.
In one of the most widely followed wrongful death suits involving a governmental entity, a federal judge in Texas allowed a suit to be brought against the federal government by family members of the Branch Davidians, a religious sect based near Waco, Texas. About one hundred plaintiffs sought $675 million in damages from the federal government, alleging that the government used excessive force in a standoff with the group at its compound. The standoff ended on April 19, 1993, when the sect's compound, which was believed to contain a hoard of weapons, burst into flames, killing everyone inside. Included among the deceased were leader David Koresh and 17 children. The judge, Walter Smith, later found that the federal government bore no responsibility for the incident and was not liable.
The Defendant's Responsibility
In order to sue for wrongful death, it must be proven that the acts or omissions of the defendant were the proximate cause of the decedent's injuries and death. This means that the defendant's wrongful conduct must have created a natural, direct series of events that led to the injury.
Damages
The law of each state governs the amount of damages recoverable by statutory beneficiaries. Compensatory Damages, which are intended to make restitution for the amount of money lost, are the most common damages awarded in wrongful death actions. Plaintiffs who prevail in a wrongful death lawsuit may recover medical and funeral expenses in addition to the amount of economic support they could have received if the decedent had lived and, in some instances, a sum of money to compensate for grief or loss of services or companionship.
Determining the amount of damages in a wrongful death action requires the taking into account of many variables. To compute compensation, the salary that the decedent could have earned may be multiplied by the number of years he most likely would have lived and can be adjusted for various factors, including inflation. Standard actuarial tables serve as guides for the life expectancy of particular groups identified by age or gender. The decedent's mental and physical health, along with the nature of his work, may also be taken into consideration by a jury.
Damages cannot always be calculated on the basis of potential earnings because not everyone is employed. Courts have set minimum yearly dollar amounts for the worth of an individual's housekeeping and for Child Care services.
Punitive Damages may be awarded in a wrongful death case if the defendant's actions were particularly reckless or heinous. Punitive damages are a means of punishing the defendant for his action and are awarded at the discretion of the jury. Any damages recovered are distributed among the survivors subject to the statutes of each state. Courts frequently divide an award based on the extent of each beneficiary's loss.
In 1997, in the wrongful death action brought against O. J. Simpson by the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, the former football star was required to pay a total of $33.5 million in punitive and compensatory damages. Although he was acquitted in 1995 of murdering his ex-wife and Goldman, a Superior Court jury in Santa Monica, California, found him liable for their deaths. As a result, Nicole Brown Simpson's estate received an award of $12.5 million, while Goldman's estate received $13.475 million and Sharon Rufo, Goldman's mother, received $7.525 million. Simpson retained custody of his two children with Nicole; the children were beneficiaries of her estate.
Limitations on Recovery of DamagesSome states limit the amount of money that can be recovered in a wrongful death action. For example, many state and local governments that waive sovereign immunity set a maximum amount of damages that can be recovered for a wrongful death. However, a number of states do not limit the amount of damages for wrongful death.
International treaties limit the amount recoverable for the death of passengers on international airlines. Workers' Compensation laws, which exist in some form in every state, place limits upon an employer's liability. Employers must carry insurance for their employees that compensates workers based on a legal schedule for each type of injury or for death. In return for carrying such insurance, employers are immune from negligence suits. The result is that the amount workers can recover is limited, but recovery is guaranteed for injury or death sustained in the course of employment.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Sept 30, 2011 12:54:39 GMT -6
I understood his "wouldn't mind" post differently but I'm sure he will clarify this for us Still to live next door to someone who did a job like this for a living and enjoyed it. Sick sick sick! Yes I understand. But on the other hand you must understand that I wouldn't want to live next to someone who puts people to death either.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 30, 2011 14:46:25 GMT -6
So you still think that we'd all be murdering each other without laws expressly fobidding this? Legalize murder, and the majority would still not murder, but I would wager the murder rate would increase tenfold. Many of the law-abiding are sociopathic and don't need much encouragement to commit murder, especially where I live.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Sept 30, 2011 14:48:24 GMT -6
Which is why there should be mandatory LWOP for all murderers and they should be housed in maximum security units (because I agree that costs should not be relevant). I couldn't vote against that, but most people probably would, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Oct 1, 2011 4:15:10 GMT -6
@agave, thanks for that.
I believe that under Austrian law, if we were to reintroduce the death penalty and the responsible judges wrongly convicted someone with intent or negligence, the state would be liable to pay the family members damages for pain and suffering is such pain and suffering exceeded the usual painn and suffering caused by the death of a person (don't ask, this is the result of some some strange case law here).
I am unsure as to whether that would technically mean that the family member actually has a right to not have the "murderer" put to death.
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Oct 1, 2011 4:16:42 GMT -6
So you still think that we'd all be murdering each other without laws expressly fobidding this? Legalize murder, and the majority would still not murder, but I would wager the murder rate would increase tenfold. Many of the law-abiding are sociopathic and don't need much encouragement to commit murder, especially where I live. You mean they are law-abiding yet sociopathic nonetheless?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 1, 2011 4:34:18 GMT -6
I am unsure as to whether that would technically mean that the family member actually has a right to not have the "murderer" put to death. It is a difficult question. But I'm glad you understand what I am arguing
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2011 10:55:41 GMT -6
So the only ones who should be locked up are kidnappers since they hold people against their will? Actually, no... we punish all crimes with fine or imprisonment or both, and certainly imprisonment for all the most violent crimes. It's only once in a great while that we dole some other thing ~ DP.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 1, 2011 14:01:35 GMT -6
So the only ones who should be locked up are kidnappers since they hold people against their will? Actually, no... we punish all crimes with fine or imprisonment or both, and certainly imprisonment for all the most violent crimes. It's only once in a great while that we dole some other thing ~ DP. Would that be consistent with punishing those the way they committed the crime? Steal from those who stole. Use a weapon if they committed arm robbery. etc.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 14:08:32 GMT -6
Actually, no... we punish all crimes with fine or imprisonment or both, and certainly imprisonment for all the most violent crimes. It's only once in a great while that we dole some other thing ~ DP. Would that be consistent with punishing those the way they committed the crime? Steal from those who stole. Use a weapon if they committed arm robbery. etc. Stormy you keep making points for being anti. Are you really a pro?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 1, 2011 16:15:27 GMT -6
You mean they are law-abiding yet sociopathic nonetheless? Sure. Sociopathic doesn't mean one has no self-control at all.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 1, 2011 17:00:20 GMT -6
Would that be consistent with punishing those the way they committed the crime? Steal from those who stole. Use a weapon if they committed arm robbery. etc. Stormy you keep making points for being anti. Are you really a pro? How would that stop me from being a pro? Wouldn't I still believe then that all murderers be put to death? ;D
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 1, 2011 17:41:56 GMT -6
Stormy you keep making points for being anti. Are you really a pro? How would that stop me from being a pro? Wouldn't I still believe then that all murderers be put to death? ;D We have already been around the block on this, do we steal from thieves, do we rape rapist. You want to be consistant that we execute all murderers though why is that? Sorry to add" Why was it aburd to have a legal professional rapist to rape inmates who rape as punishmnent then? I mean pro or not does this really make any logical sense to you?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 1, 2011 18:54:55 GMT -6
How would that stop me from being a pro? Wouldn't I still believe then that all murderers be put to death? ;D We have already been around the block on this, do we steal from thieves, do we rape rapist. You want to be consistant that we execute all murderers though why is that? Sorry to add" Why was it aburd to have a legal professional rapist to rape inmates who rape as punishmnent then? I mean pro or not does this really make any logical sense to you? It makes sense to me not to rape a rapist tbut lock them up and to put a murderer to death. However, if we are going to punish people in a way that we do to them what they didn't committing their crime then the only ones who should be locked are kidnappers. Now if we are going to rape a rapist he would have to have what a woman has when she is raped. Are we going to pay for their sex change so this can happen?
|
|