# degrees of murder?

Category: Let's talk

## Post 1 by sugarbaby (The voice of reason) on Tuesday, 24-May-2005 6:57:15

well today the director public prosicutions announced that he feels the laws re murder need to be reviewed, so that murderers do not automatically get a life sentence, but that the sentence should be passed according to what kind of murder has been committed. Well, surely murder is murder isn't it? yeh I realize that premeditated murder is perhaps different to killing someone in a rage, or causing death by dangerous driving (which is actually prosicuted under that offence in this country), but if you kill someone, shouldn't you pay the price?

## Post 2 by Ukulele<3 (Try me... You know you want to.) on Tuesday, 24-May-2005 9:01:54

I totally agree Sugarbaby!!! I do not think that the murder laws should be changed. If you decide to kill someone, you know the consequences and therefore, you shouldn't do it. I think that changing the laws will just be another excuse for letting the murderer off easily.
*sexy*

## Post 3 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Tuesday, 24-May-2005 9:08:38

Well if you premediated the killing the court would need to take into account, how long you had harboured resentment to the individual and the method of the killing.. also the violence and was it entirely deliberate or did something go wrong...after all we can all say I'll kill him..but would we ..every single person is capable of murder...

## Post 4 by wildebrew (We promised the world we'd tame it, what were we hoping for?) on Tuesday, 24-May-2005 14:51:16

I think there are absolutely different circumstances that should be taken into consideration for murder.
E.g. if murder is in self defense or if done in rage (say one just found one's partner in bed with someone else e.g.) an act of the moment it means the person is dangerous, yes, and needs punishment surely and counselling to deal with his/here temper but I feel that is really not the same situation as someone who e.g. kills someone for money/insurance or out of resentment and if killing was planned for a long time. That is heartless and, well, just different reallyl. Not to say the first offense should go without punishment. And what about e.g. drunk driving .. is that murder, shouldn't then everyone who drives drunk be charged with murder because they all have the potential to kill someone not being in control of a vehicle on the road, it's almost a matter of luck after that who escapes an accident, they all went out knowing the potential that they could kill someone. It's hard though because it's impossible to charge for a crime that hasn't been committed but often I feel it's almost the same thing. It's certainly a very contensious issue.

## Post 5 by Senior (I've now got the bronze prolific poster award! now going for the silver award!) on Thursday, 26-May-2005 11:08:10

It shouldn't matter how you killed someone if the killing was avoidable. So, if you drink-drive you should be treated the same as someone who shoots dead someone. Murderers should never be let back into society, and they shouldn't cost the society in any way. If you kill someone in self-defence, or because that person is putting your life at risk, or because that person has commited a criminal offence which has caused you or your property harm, you shouldn't be punnished in any way.

## Post 6 by Goblin (I have proven to myself and the world that I need mental help) on Thursday, 26-May-2005 11:28:04

Well your the one who is keen on shooting innocent individuals so you tell me hmm?..if you shoot someome dead, aren't you then a murderer, are we agreed that you should be locked up if you ever should indulge your insane solution to certain socio- economic /medical problems...