Is it self-defence if an inmate, on day of execution, kills his executioner?
-
TaraDeS — 3 years ago(November 17, 2022 05:43 PM)
by WarrenPeace November 17, 2022 04:46 PM
Member since October 19, 2021
Execution is legal killing so I don't see how they would recognize that as self defense.
This is a man who was already convicted of murder who kills again so I don't see how a jury is going to be non biased towards him.
I think the only chance or way they might see what he does as self defense is if he killed another inmate in defending himself.
When someone kills another associated with law enforcement, that is hardly ever or never seen as self defense.
Cops can kill us from a mistake and get away with it but not the other way around.
I get where you are coming from with this question and I am against the death penalty, which is murder and wrong.
From my layman legal opinion, I don't think the authorities would see this as self defense.
Nope, execution is NOT
"legal killing"
.
Executions violate Human Rights. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(November 18, 2022 09:03 AM)
Since this is a prisoner and not a free man, he would go back onto trial for murder and I doubt any jury would acquit him for self defense.
The law can't recognize its own ass at times, especially when it comes down to executions and sentencing prisoners to die.
And you can bet your own ass, that if a scenario was to come about like in the OP or even yours, it would get covered up big time. It would bring up the contradictions of the law regarding the death sentence and human rights. This is why a majority of civilized countries have done away with the death penalty, because it's recognized as a flaw in the basic right to ones own individual human life.
Of course the US has to be an ass clown about it.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(November 18, 2022 02:59 PM)
Good points and no disagreement from me.
Another thing about the execution that no ever brings up or wants to think about is that the executioner himself is a murderer.
The only difference is the state or the country lets him get away with it.
While legally it is right, though it should not be, morally it is wrong.
If there is an afterlife then he will probably have to answer for the act of killing helpless men and women.
He who is without sin cast the first stone, kinda thing.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(November 18, 2022 08:52 AM)
That is an interesting scenario and highlights the hypocrisies and absurdities of the legalities surrounding murder/killing when applied to the death penalty.
The bottom line is though, the law has decreed the condemned is to die and all human rights are waived in this respect, which in and of itself is technically illegal. If the dude is to die, and has an opportunity to take out others around the time of death, any notion of self-defense would likely be rendered redundant.
The law claims he no longer has any right to his own life, so he may as well take down as many as he can. Would there be another trial and would this postpone the execution that was supposed to go ahead no matter what….
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(November 18, 2022 03:04 PM)
I think they would put him on trial just so they could charge, convict and murder him in addition to his latest killing in self defense.
Which of course would make the legal system look hypocritical though I doubt anyone would see it that way since this was a murderer that everyone will be prejudiced towards in the first place.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
P.Error — 3 years ago(November 19, 2022 04:05 AM)
If the law states he is no longer a person with rights to life, then he cannot be charged with a crime. To charge him with a crime would be to say he has his personhood and can make decisions, which he cannot.
It's the State's responsibility to make sure he doesn't escape and kill him. The inmate isn't expected to cooperate. He's supposed to be restrained. If the inmate escapes and kills, then it'd go down as a "workplace accident" rather than a "murder."
If he is charged with murder, then he has a constitutional right to defend himself.
I do not believe any reasonable jury would convict him of murder for the act of killing a person about to kill him - an act of objective self-defence.
To call this murder would be to say that an inmate, if he is presented an opportunity to escape due to a State mishap, that he must ignore it, and comply, cooperate, and obey the rules, and willingly submit himself to be killed. This would be insanely ludicrous.
First, self-defence is instinctual. Regardless of why the man is in prison, regardless of past events, in the moment where you see someone about to kill someone with a weapon, the law cannot hold someone legally accountable for acting on human instinct, in this case, killing to prevent the person from killing you.
Never lose your desire. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(November 19, 2022 06:18 AM)
First, self-defence is instinctual. Regardless of why the man is in prison, regardless of past events, in the moment where you see someone about to kill someone with a weapon, the law cannot hold someone legally accountable for acting on human instinct, in this case, killing to prevent the person from killing you.
Then there CANNOT be a murder charge, because if he has no rights anymore to his own life, "self-defense" wouldn't then be an aspect of it, as that would have to be part of his defense if there was a charge.
For the justice system to act accordingly to their own interpretation of the law surrounding execution, the guy is technically set to die, (or killed/murdered by the state), as scheduled and only some unforeseen circumstance would delay this.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
P.Error — 3 years ago(November 19, 2022 07:27 AM)
Law aside…
The Death penalty is so inappropriate.
Like, imagine if I was escorting Nimda to the electric chair. "Hahaha, remember the time you took away my colours, Nimda? Now I get the last laugh. I get to watch you dieeeee and you can't fight back ahahaha."
Or I'm escorting Monicah, "you should have answered my texts, but I guess now I won't be expecting any more from you, hahaha PWNED."
I wouldn't have to call them a bitch or **** or anything. Just a subtle smirk and the actions that present itself already speak with enough PWNAGE. They're in a defenceless situation. No Hope. They can even spit on you and call you insults, but you can give them that smirk, "hah you gon die in like 5 minutes, son."
No one should have that kind of power over another human being. It's the ultimate own. Rendering a person immobile and then killing them, all done legally! HOW IS THIS A THING.
It's less stomach-churning if it's done illegally. I'm less disturbed by a cartel video on BestGore where a person is being gutted alive. At least then, the person has a chance of being caught and no one endorses this. But, the government allowing someone to OWN and ONE-UP another human this way is horrifying. It's the unequal power dynamic I'm uncomfortable with.
Both sides should be equal strength. Put a guard in with the inmate, no weapons, and fist-fight to the death. First one to die loses. Give the person some hope.
Never lose your desire. -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(November 19, 2022 09:19 AM)
No one should have that kind of power over another human being. It's the ultimate own. Rendering a person immobile and then killing them, all done legally! HOW IS THIS A THING.
We could also argue about the rights to life for the victims of the condemned, who took this away from them. However, this then brings up the moral and ethical issue of using killing as a punishment for killing, when those same judicial doctrines claim murder is illegal and will be punished accordingly by killing.
It also becomes about mincing the terms killing/murder. All those involved in the process of the execution, could also technically be considered accessories to a killing/murder. According to law, they are doing the appropriate and just thing by the righteous law that has been lain down, yet is ultimately contradicting its own reasoning and process.
Have you seen
Dead Man Walking - '95
? One of the best films of that year and one of the best on the subject. It takes a well balanced and well adjusted approach to all sides of the tale.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
P.Error — 3 years ago(November 19, 2022 04:40 AM)
Not just morally, objectively. He killed someone who was about to kill him. There’s no argument there. Self-defence isn’t a moral concept it’s an instinctual reaction.
It’s impossible for the State to hold him accountable unless they rule death row inmates are forced to comply and physically submit themselves by will to those killing him.
Never lose your desire. -
Gay 4 Fugazi — 3 years ago(November 18, 2022 04:13 PM)I think all death sentences should be carried out like a mob hit. After you have spoke to the reverend and ate your last meal you are taken to the gas chamber and met buy a tall guy with 70s gangster hair and big Dahmer glass and he greets you like a friend but shoots you twice in the face and then walks away like it never happened.
(っ◔◡◔)っ Fugazi -
TaraDeS — 3 years ago(November 18, 2022 07:20 PM)
by Danal1 November 18, 2022 05:13 PM
Member since September 26, 2022
I think all death sentences should be carried out like a mob hit. After you have spoke to the reverend and ate your last meal you are taken to the gas chamber and met buy a tall guy with 70s gangster hair and big Dahmer glass and he greets you like a friend but shoots you twice in the face and then walks away like it never happened.
Yah, great way of an execution also.
Just wrote it on another platform:
We should revive Marketplace festivals with executions by romantic torchlight.
Always wanted to watch a drawing and quartering with fiery horses.