Posted on 02/20/2005 12:20:35 PM PST by Stoat
|
Why is "self-defense" even on this chart?
Where would Ted Kennedy rank on this scale? He deserves the same number he sees when he steps on the bathroom scales.
Although this scale appears to be a worthwhile tool in that it provides perspective on degrees of evil and takes into account the suffering of the victim, I take strong issue with self defense being categorized as evil at all.....a legal and necessary killing done in self defense is not evil but part of our basic instict for survival,
I don't think number 1 should be on the list at all. Putting "killing someone in defense of your own life" on the list is politics.
LOL you beat me to it, my sentiments exactly, Please see my previous post #4
He's a 10 or a 12.
Agreed.
I don't think number 1 should be on the list at all. Putting "killing someone in defense of your own life" on the list is politics.
I agree with the self-defense comments here. There is nothing "depraved" about defending yourself. A lot of the rest makes sense, except for the fact that the list was compiled by a bunch of psychiatrists. I wouldn't trust anything with those authors.
14
I'd say somewhere between 9 and 14 (inclusive).
I would suggest that this is merely an additional tool being given to jurors, a mechanism by which levels of depravity can be measured.
Prosecutors are taking a cheap shot by bringing in phony science to intimidate jurors from exercising their independent judgment.
No one is suggesting that the jury be taken out of the picture and replaced with this scale. It shouldn't intimidate anybody, rather it may help them to understand the reasons why a truly evil person deserves an exceptional sentence.
What makes you think that loathsome toad can even SEE his bathroom scales?
Just my opinion of course.
Muleteam1
So, should I understand that you do not feel it would be helpful for the law to recognize the level of viciousness in a killer? Do you not think that if you were a juror at a murder trial, that it might be helpful to you to be provided with a scientific framework to understand the crime better, so that you might render the best judgment? I think that it would be helpful for there to be a scientific basis for saying that a psychopathic serial killer who kills randomly and for fun should get a far more severe sentence than an otherwise law-abiding person who, for example, flies into a fit of rage upon finding a husband or wife in bed with another person. Do you feel that these two killers should be treated in exactly the same way?
Again, nobody is suggesting that this scale replace the jury but that it merely provides a tool for understanding the nature of the crime.
I don't think he is a 14 as he didn't set out to intentionaly kill her. He didn't plan the kill. After he put her in a position where she would die, he left her there and tried to hide his involvement. That means he killed her simply because she was in his way. Had she lived, it would have been a sex scandal. Had she died he would have this drunk driving death hanging over him. So his plan was to run away from it altogether. His plan failed.
He did, in a self serving manner, scheme to get away from the problem to save his political ass. You are probably correct, it just sounded good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.