Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 30, 2014, 02:01:14 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Debate (Moderator: Beet)
| | |-+  Justifiable Homicide, Immunity or Defense?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Poll
Question: ?
Immunity   -7 (36.8%)
Defense   -12 (63.2%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 19

Author Topic: Justifiable Homicide, Immunity or Defense?  (Read 677 times)
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16062


View Profile
« on: April 01, 2012, 09:20:42 pm »

Immunity- the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that a homicide is not justified.
Defense- the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that a homicide was justified.

Anyone have any thoughts about this? The common law justification for the presumption of innocence supposedly originates from the saying, "Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat; cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probatio nulla sit "The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.

To me if a defendant is admitting that he or she killed someone but asserting that this was justified, the claim that the homicide was justified is separate from the claim that the homicide itself occurred. On the latter question the defendant is given the presumption of innocence, "innocent until proven guilty", but on the former question, the homicide victim must be given the same presumption. It should be the obligation of the defendant to prove-in court- that the action was justified. 
Logged

Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4981
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 01, 2012, 09:44:11 pm »
Ignore

The problem with that line of thinking is that the person who was killed is already dead regardless of what the court rules. Granting the dead person the presumption of innocence is meaningless. The penalty has not been imposed by the court.

I'm not much of a softie on justice issues in general but how can you convict someone without actually proving they committed the crime? Killing in self-defense is not a crime.
Logged

Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16062


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 01, 2012, 10:47:43 pm »

It's not meaningless because the dead person is still entitled to justice. Otherwise, why have any punitive aspect to the penal system, at all?

It goes back to the reasoning behind presumption of innocence. The burden of proof lies on the one who affirms. A person who says that the killing of someone else by them was justified is the one affirming, so that person should have the burden of proof.
Logged

Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31248
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 02, 2012, 03:43:46 am »
Ignore

Defense. Immunity makes the murder charge totally unworkable.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.

It really is.



"A reformist is someone who realizes that, when you bang your head on a wall, it's the head that breaks rather than the wall."

Peppino, from the movie Baaria
Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 02, 2012, 04:12:57 am »
Ignore

I think it is a mistake to separate the action from the justification, since you could do this with everything. Rape is an obvious point, since the act is not illegal if it is justified. If killing someone can be ok, obviously pretty much anything can be ok. So by having this system you would essentially shift the burden of proof to the defendant in general.
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16062


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 02, 2012, 11:46:49 am »

What do you consider to be justifiable rape? I actually cannot think of any examples. The closest would be something like, "I raped my girlfriend because, there were some people threatening to kill my family if I did not do it, for their enjoyment." but even that would only be a mitigating factor if the girlfriend nonetheless wanted to press charges.
Logged

Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2012, 11:57:33 am »
Ignore

What do you consider to be justifiable rape? I actually cannot think of any examples. The closest would be something like, "I raped my girlfriend because, there were some people threatening to kill my family if I did not do it, for their enjoyment." but even that would only be a mitigating factor if the girlfriend nonetheless wanted to press charges.

I think you misunderstood me. Having sex with someone can be justified. So I could go "I admit I had sex with this woman, but it was justified sex." Prosecution goes, "fine, but it's up to you to prove that you were justified"
Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35708
United States


Political Matrix
E: -8.52, S: -8.00

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2012, 12:03:42 pm »
Ignore

I always support the most expansive interpretation possible of the rights of the accused.
Logged

in a mirror, dimly lit
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16062


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2012, 12:04:40 pm »

Right, but having sex with someone does not prove that you have caused them any harm. Killing someone, you have caused them the ultimate harm. The two could not be more different.

A better example is burglary, since if you prove that I stole property from you, you have shown that I have caused you harm. If I then claim "there were some people at my house who were threatening to kill my family if I did not steal for you," should it be my obligation to prove that there were indeed such people making such a threat, or should it be your obligation to prove that there were no such people?

Or even better... if I claim that the property was mine to begin with, since you stole it from me last week, is the burden of proof on me or you?

I always support the most expansive interpretation possible of the rights of the accused.

In the case of justifiable homicide though, the person being killed is the one being implicitly accused, on the question of justification.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2012, 12:08:12 pm by Beet »Logged

Gustaf
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26922


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2012, 03:27:07 am »
Ignore

Right, but having sex with someone does not prove that you have caused them any harm. Killing someone, you have caused them the ultimate harm. The two could not be more different.

A better example is burglary, since if you prove that I stole property from you, you have shown that I have caused you harm. If I then claim "there were some people at my house who were threatening to kill my family if I did not steal for you," should it be my obligation to prove that there were indeed such people making such a threat, or should it be your obligation to prove that there were no such people?

Or even better... if I claim that the property was mine to begin with, since you stole it from me last week, is the burden of proof on me or you?

I always support the most expansive interpretation possible of the rights of the accused.

In the case of justifiable homicide though, the person being killed is the one being implicitly accused, on the question of justification.

Well, not necessarily. "Yes, I have your wallet, but you gave it to me so I'm justified in having it." "Well, it's up to you to prove that you're justified"

Logged

This place really has become a cesspool of degenerate whores...

Economic score: +0.9
Social score: -2.61

In MN for fantasy stuff, member of the most recently dissolved centrist party.
Beet
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16062


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2012, 02:28:35 pm »

Well, not necessarily. "Yes, I have your wallet, but you gave it to me so I'm justified in having it." "Well, it's up to you to prove that you're justified"

I don't see that as so unreasonable. First of all, why would I have your wallet, with your driver's license, current credit cards, club discounts, medical card, et cetera, picture of your girlfriend, et cetera, in my possession, and refuse to give it to you, although you asked for it? If you claim that I took it from you, and I claim you gave it to me permanently, and refuse to return it, I don't see how it's so unreasonable that a neutral third party would put the burden of proof on me. There are legal documents and many other well-established customs assigning the contents of the wallet to you, whereas there are no contracts (unless I could produce one stating transfer of the wallet in exchange for other property) assigning it to me.

If a person can take the property of another and then assert that it was given to them freely, when the person who holds title to that property is asserting that it was taken without their permission and wants it back, what is the point of contracts? What is the point of receipts? It is virtually impossible for the original owner to prove that he or she didn't give it freely. It is up to the person holding the property to produce titles, contracts, and receipts showing that ownership was properly transferred to them.
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines