Ends justifying the means

[Kramodlog]

But that is how the law works. The judge has the power to do this sort of thing. That isn't sweeping it under the rug. Plea deals occur all the time, for a variety of reasons, and judges suspend sentences as well. It isn't like it didn't go through the court system. Not every case goes to trial.

Indeed, but not every murderer just gets probation.

On a side note, why were you wrong about 5e?

 

[Kramodlog]

But she didn't shoot him for his views on murder. She shot him because he had been abusing her, was getting into pedophilia, was forcing her to help him and she had good reason to believe he was interested in acting that out on their daughter.

Reasons to call the cops, not shoot him. There was no immediate threat.

Everyone is equal before the law, but not all situations or acts are morally or legally equal. Killing a person you believe poses a threat to your child, who has abused you, does not have the same moral characteristics as killing someone whom you simply disagree with. It just doesn't. I would be prepared to send a person who killed someone over ideology to prison. In a case where you have a woman abused over years by the husband, who appears to believe he poses a threat to the daughter, I am much less convinced prison is the best solution. In this case, the judge felt the circumstances warranted suspending the sentence, and I agree based on the information available.

What if she tried to hire a contact killer?

 

[Janx]

Actually, there was no trial. There was a plea deal between her and the prosecutor. The judge was left with the sentencing and basically gave her probation even if the prosecutor wanted a year in prison.

So, being a parents means people should avoid prison for the crimes they did?

Why would I think that? I think you are parsing too thinly on points. My views on what merits what punishment are more complicated than I can articulate.

The woman appears to be a good person (doing a bad thing to a bad person does not automatically make her bad)
The woman killed a bad person who did bad things to her for years
the woman is a parent and there is no evidence that she is bad at it
There is a fair track record that kids who aren't raised by their parents don't do as well (barring situations where their original parents are crappy)

I see no reason to punish her because she is not a bad person. She is not likely to become a threat to others.
Additionally, punishing her would additionally hurt her daughter.

Prison is where I want people who do harm to society to be. Since that is not the case here by my reckoning, I don't want her to go to prison as it would do more harm than good.

It is more fundamental than that. It is a question of everyone being equal under the law. That only a few trained and designated people can apply the law.

Everybody's not equal under the law. They are at the whim of whether they have a good lawyer or have looks that help them appeal to the jury. At best, they are not discriminated against. I do not want to live in a society where the law is enforced like computer code and situational exceptions are not recognized.

It is not like you would want someone to shoot you because of your views on murder and they thought you were a threat to them so they needed to take the law into their own hands, right?

Of course I don't. But there is a world of difference from me suggesting a silly legal philosophy that someone doesn't agree with versus actually living with an actual bad person who abuses you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Indeed, but not every murderer just gets probation.

On a side note, why were you wrong about 5e?

i made a wager on enworld that 5E would come out this year.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Reasons to call the cops, not shoot him. There was no immediate threat.

calling the cops is probably the better option, but it is no guarantee of her or the daugher's safety. Cops were called on jeffrey dalmer while he was trying to kill one of his victims and they bought his story and left the victim with him. Those kinds of cases rare, but i can see how someone in that situtation would kill the husband while he slept rather than chance calling the authorities. It is worth pointing out that she calld the police after she committed the deed. To me this case is not much different than a sex slave murdering her pimp or an abused child murdering the abuser. These are not the same as killing someone in cold blood, and i do not think they always require prison time.

What if she tried to hire a contact killer?

I think it looks dirtier if she hired a contract killer, and she probably would have served a prison sentence if she had, but personally i think given the circumstances, it is not an act i would want her to go to prison for.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

That's because the conversation looped. And we all recognized she had other choices. Some of us just don't mind the choice she made, even though it wasn't the best.

Yep, at this point it's more about learning the why to understand the person, IMO. It's where things get interesting. We're not gonna change each others' minds and that's ok. We can, though, still pick up things about each other through continued discussion ... to a point.

It would be disturbing if I believed or acted on that to the extreme letter of the statement. We already have bad guys killing good people (though the crime rate has gone down thanks to Freakonomics). Can't raise them either. Justice system isn't perfect, and never will be. But somebody with direct contact with the bad guy is in a good position to cut out the weeds. I prefer such situations to be cut and dried obvious who the bad guy was, so I am not approving rampant vigilantism either.

Well that's a lot more reasonable.

Assuming she was ever beaten by him, that warrants lethal self defense in JanxLand. I reserve a special level in hell for wife beaters and I like to receive them direct from their spouses or new boyfriends if possible.

Me? I'm all for equality. If punching a dood in the face isn't enough to warrant my sleepy-time shooting then punching a woman in the face isn't either. Women are a lot tougher than a lot of people give 'em credit for. That's not to say that punching them is ok - it's not - but it's no worse (still bad) than punching a man.

Equality means equal in all things - not just the ones that we don't feel squicky about.

They call it Jury Nullification, but the law specifically covers that a jury member may vote his conscience. If I do not believe that a woman who was abused by her husband warrants going to jail, I do NOT have to side with the letter of the law. That's what happens when Chaotic Good people get involved with writing the Constitution.

And that's a good thing ... to a point. Really, if all we care about is how other people feel about what we did then there really isn't much point in having written law at all.

If she shot him during or immediately before a savage beating I'd actually be upset she was sentenced at all. That's not what happened, though.

I did use a qualifying term "apparently" as I cannot actually know your intent. If you want to punish the woman who was in unusual circumstance (it's not like my wife deciding to off me for no reason), then you are also in effect choosing that she not raise her daughter. She might actually suck at raising her daughter (she did have poor taste in men apparently), but those are variables outside the information I have.

My desire to see her punished for her crimes does not extend to anything that has to do with her daughter. I don't necessarily want her daughter to grow up with her mother in prison but that's also not a decision I made. Were she sentenced to prison, that would be a result of her actions - not mine.

No, because they are bad. I do not believe the woman is bad (lacking any info that she has done any other bad things). Therefore, putting a presumably good woman who did bad but justifiable thing is not a useful punishment for her act. As sociologists have apparently proven that stiff punishments don't disuade others from doing a crime, it seems there is little value and more harm in punishing THIS woman stiffly.

I would prefer to put actual bad people in prison. People who will be repeat offenders or whose crime was very damaging to society. I don't see how this woman damaged society. She probably reduced calls to police for this bad guy and she just happened to prevent terrorism (which if she didn't know he was building a bomb, she also didn't know if he was feeling her kid up and that is VERY common). If she's not likely to kill again or otherwise disrupt society, let's put some stuff on her record and give her time served (including time with mr. wife beater).

The thing is, it's not that she did one bad thing. See, what she did was really bad. She removed someone from the planet because she felt like it. She made that decision - not some great authority. It's not like she burnt dinner or pooped on the floor, she killed someone.

All good things. The trap is if we get stuck in trying to be a "right fighter" as Dr. Phil would call it, or if we're just blasting the same point that nobody else cares about. Like the jury, I think a majority here doesn't care that what she did was legally wrong. It's an impasse.

Dr Phil? Fo' realski, brah? *shakes head*

Yep, it's an impasse. That said, there's still some fun/benefit to be had. Time to explore the peripherals - if we feel like it.

I try to to include qualifying words like "apparently" or "appears" or some such to indicate that I think a person's position is XYZ, but to leave room for being wrong and to show I am not stating it as an absolute fact. Deducing intent is always tricky and EN advises not assigning somebody's intent. However, some things are logically deducible. If you say the woman should to go to jail, then I am inclined to believe your intent is that the woman should go to jail and that you are arguing with that goal.

I do find, that if you are attempting to argue as a devil's advocate (choosing a specific side as its own exercise in debate), it helps to declare that upfront. Otherwise, it can make discussion maddening as "we don't care that what she did was illegal, so why do you keep bringing that point up" happens.

For the record, I'm not playing devil's advocate here. I'm actually an NRA certified firearms instructor (Basic Pistol) and that means I can run the classes that issue people CHL certificates in the state I live that they can use to get their license. Self defense - especially lethal - is something I take very seriously. I don't think she should get a pass because she failed to satisfy the requirements for lethal self defense. I realize that's not why she was given her pass but it has been a fairly popular argument in justification here.

Also remember, I suck at debate. I might have a few points, but I am not going to successfully sway anybody.

Don't sell yourself short. You're easy to talk to and that makes you more persuasive than anything else. Aside from that it's pretty rare to sway anyone's mind on the intertoobz. Just not terribly common.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Me? I'm all for equality. If punching a dood in the face isn't enough to warrant my sleepy-time shooting then punching a woman in the face isn't either. Women are a lot tougher than a lot of people give 'em credit for. That's not to say that punching them is ok - it's not - but it's no worse (still bad) than punching a man.

Equality means equal in all things - not just the ones that we don't feel squicky about.

mmon.

I think punching people in the face is bad in both cases, but they are different. If my wie decided to start abusing me, i would have a pretty easy tome fending her off and a pretty easy time extricating myself from the situation. But if i were to abuse my wife, it would be very hard for her to defend herself. Certainly there are going to be instances where that isn't the case, where a woman will have no problem overpowering her husband, but the general rule of "its worse for men ti hit women" is somthing I am okay with retaining. I think a woman can playfully or even not so playfully strike a man with little long term effect. I have seen healthy couples where this occurs. However I have never seen a healthy relationship that is the reverse of that. There is a power dynamic that is just different. A man should not hit a woman. Period. I think when women ask for equality, they don't have what you are suggesting in mind.

 

[Zombie_Babies]

I think punching people in the face is bad in both cases, but they are different. If my wie decided to start abusing me, i would have a pretty easy tome fending her off and a pretty easy time extricating myself from the situation. But if i were to abuse my wife, it would be very hard for her to defend herself. Certainly there are going to be instances where that isn't the case, where a woman will have no problem overpowering her husband, but the general rule of "its worse for men ti hit women" is somthing I am okay with retaining. I think a woman can playfully or even not so playfully strike a man with little long term effect. I have seen healthy couples where this occurs. However I have never seen a healthy relationship that is the reverse of that. There is a power dynamic that is just different. A man should not hit a woman. Period. I think when women ask for equality, they don't have what you are suggesting in mind.

Heh, you and I will have to hook up someday. I know plenty of women that'll be able to set you straight pretty quick.

That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right? Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.

Anyhoo, that rule was written during a time when women were considered to be lesser beings and, ironically enough, very often beaten. Women shouldn't be seen as lesser beings in any regard. They're not. In five minutes I could train your wife to ruin your day (and maybe a lot longer) if you ever decided to raise a hand to her (not that you would - I'd never presume something like that). But I meant what I said. Equality isn't a per instance thing, it's all or nothing. That means that even when it comes to things we may not like it still applies. That's why itreally is no worse to hit a woman - presuming, of course, that it's wrong to hit anyone.

Good, bad, whatever - equal is equal. If it's wrong to say you can't pay a woman as much as a man it's also wrong to say it's worse to strike a woman. It's not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Heh, you and I will have to hook up someday. I know plenty of women that'll be able to set you straight pretty quick.

That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right? Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.

Anyhoo, that rule was written during a time when women were considered to be lesser beings and, ironically enough, very often beaten. Women shouldn't be seen as lesser beings in any regard. They're not. In five minutes I could train your wife to ruin your day (and maybe a lot longer) if you ever decided to raise a hand to her (not that you would - I'd never presume something like that). But I meant what I said. Equality isn't a per instance thing, it's all or nothing. That means that even when it comes to things we may not like it still applies. That's why itreally is no worse to hit a woman - presuming, of course, that it's wrong to hit anyone.

Good, bad, whatever - equal is equal. If it's wrong to say you can't pay a woman as much as a man it's also wrong to say it's worse to strike a woman. It's not.

We just disagree on this point, and i am not interested in turning this into a women versus men debate. I just think it is both wrong for men to hit women and different when a man strikes a woman than the other way around. Equal means we all have the same value and the same basic abilities, but it doesnt mean there are not differences between people when it comes to size, strength, etc. I am only offering this here as a way of explaining my position, not so we can start another rpg forum discussion on differences between the sexes (i would be happy to field any questions or points by pm, but am not going to offer a response to this in the thread beyond what I have below).

I did martial arts, boxing and self defense for years, and I have taught my wife and sisters what i know. There are certainly things people can do to level the playing field a bit. That said, generally speaking they are still going to be at a serious disadvantage if a guy tries to abuse them or attack them.

While i agree its wrong to pay a woman less than a man. I still think it is worse for a guy to strike a woman. Now, you have every right to disagree, but i simply cannot share your position. It is bad to hurt people at all, but it is worse for a man to strike a woman.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That said, all she has to do is wait until you go to sleep and shoot you in the face, right? Anyone can do that - man, woman, whatever.
.

If I were doing to her, what the guy in the case we discussed was doing to his wife and daughter, then I think that would be an understandable response from a person who feels victimized and is trying to protect their child.