Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

espressocycle t1_j9ybql9 wrote

I'm not a lawyer but it's not as if the defense can drag things out indefinitely so at some point there's a judge forcing a case to trial, right? So it's really a matter of degree. Under our laws the defense in this case has every right to mount a case that considers things like intent, premeditation, whether a murder was the product of another crime, etc. I simply don't think that's how it should be.

There shouldn't be degrees of murder. If a person is dead because of your intentional actions that could reasonably be expected to cause death, it's murder, period, not manslaughter, second degree murder, etc. Now I admit that would strike many people as unfair and my own instinct is to agree. "But he didn't mean to kill him, just rough him up. Who knew he had a heart condition?" However, it's much closer to how non-western societies view things and I've come to believe that's a better view.

1

harbison215 t1_j9ycnw6 wrote

The problem arises when you we start to get into who should be the arbiter of this decision. Again, you’re saying some people should be able to make a defense, and some shouldn’t. Although watching obviously guilty people form a defense can be repugnant, it would be more repugnant to see innocent people rail roaded by an unequal justice system.

We already have a justice system that can do exactly what you’re saying subliminally based on things like race, due to inherent biases. If you think adding more possible manipulation into the system would be a better thing, that’s where I strongly disagree.

1