Hadron wrote:
monty wrote:
True - they were convicted of first degree murder. But if someone lacks the mental capacity because they are ret*d, or they are young and immature, or they are 'insane' because they have a brain malfunction, I would disagree with the jury that called it first degree murder. When a rational adult plans and commits a murder, I would call first degree. Other cases, I think are different.
In your scheme of things there is no such thing as first degree murder. Murder isnt really a rational thing to do, unless its in self defence in one form or another.
No, not at all. You are confusing moral with rational. People can and do sit down and calculate the risks and benefits of killing someone - and then they make a rational decision. Rational is from the same root as ratio, to divide or calculate. (Insurance Money + Getting Rid of Pain in Ass)/ (Risk of Being Caught) = Do It ... some people think that way.
Of course, such calculation is skewed because it is based on short term, personal risk/benefit. It is a calculation that ignores or denies morality, such as the inherent right of others to live, or the value to all people of a system that respects such rights.
There are cunning, calculating killers - and this is what I consider to be worst, the type that deserves a legal label of first degree. When someone acts in a fit of passion, that is wrong, but is less reprehensible in some ways than a predatory killing. When someone is careless and their actions result in death, that is also wrong, but is usually considered manslaughter and not murder. And I don't consider self defense to be murder at all (and neither does most law) - true self defense is justifiable homicide, which is not a crime in most places.