|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 25, 2010 17:01:02 GMT -5
You kill someone? No, you get murdered, you go to jail. That's fine. But I missed the part where she actually pulled the trigger. And I missed the part where the AIG executives actually cooked the books. I find that they knew what was going on and I find that they ordered flunkies to do it for them yet they ended up in jail too. Very weird that the law would punish the mastermind of a crime more than the flunkies. I guess by your logic if I plan bank robbery and get people to take care of it then I should get a much lighter punishment than the people who actually walk into the bank with guns. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 17:03:14 GMT -5
Funny you should say that. She didn't kill anyone and she got killed. The two guys who did kill got life. Whether or not she pulled the trigger, in the case of murder setup, is irrelevant... As well it should be. Being that she was apparently mentally stable enough to have a committed relationship with a man, and raise a child... Yes, I think she knew "right from wrong." With an IQ of 71, she may not have known what was right or what was wrong. She killed him to collect his life insurance policy!! You're telling me that she knew how to setup a murder, but she didn't know that murder is bad? Really? ... Really? It should be relevant. Those who kill should get a bigger penalty than those who hire to kill, because they actually pulled the trigger. Yeah, I'm sure she is not the first mentally disabled person to raise a child. Again, wouldn't be the first time someone either killed or had someone killed and they were determined to not have known their actions were wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 17:10:04 GMT -5
That's fine. But I missed the part where she actually pulled the trigger. And I missed the part where the AIG executives actually cooked the books. I find that they knew what was going on and I find that they ordered flunkies to do it for them yet they ended up in jail too. Very weird that the law would punish the mastermind of a crime more than the flunkies. I guess by your logic if I plan bank robbery and get people to take care of it then I should get a much lighter punishment than the people who actually walk into the bank with guns. Yes. Because they have the free will to say "No, I will not rob the bank for you" or they can go to the cops and tell what this person is planning. They have 3 options to chose from. Rob the bank. Don't rob the bank. Don't rob the bank and tell the police what is going on. I can see where this is going, it's going to lead to asking me about Hitler or Bin Laden. And I will say they should get life in prison, but if they were killed in combat, well, they were there so oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by johnnypoopypants on Sept 25, 2010 17:28:12 GMT -5
They can also rob the bank and tell the police.
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 17:33:13 GMT -5
They can also rob the bank and tell the police. But they'd still get jail time, that's why I left it off the list. |
|
|
|
Post by instantclassic on Sept 25, 2010 17:37:06 GMT -5
According to the law, the person who masterminds it is responsiable for the lives lost.
Like for example.
A car carrying three people get into an accident.
all three were high, but the accident was the other persons fault.
2 people died the driver lives. The driver who supplied the stuff to his friends gets charged with their murder.
Or another one I saw off first 48
A man sitting in a barbers chair gets jumped and drug out of the shop. He kills the man however the man he kills was not the mastermind he was carrying out the task for some one else. Two men waiting for kill the man that was the target.
The two men were charged with their friends murder despite them NOT doing anything.
It was because the man killed the other man in self defense. That is why he did not get charged. But the other two did.
I know this was hard to read I am sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 25, 2010 17:41:53 GMT -5
And I missed the part where the AIG executives actually cooked the books. I find that they knew what was going on and I find that they ordered flunkies to do it for them yet they ended up in jail too. Very weird that the law would punish the mastermind of a crime more than the flunkies. I guess by your logic if I plan bank robbery and get people to take care of it then I should get a much lighter punishment than the people who actually walk into the bank with guns. Yes. Because they have the free will to say "No, I will not rob the bank for you" or they can go to the cops and tell what this person is planning. They have 3 options to chose from. Rob the bank. Don't rob the bank. Don't rob the bank and tell the police what is going on. I can see where this is going, it's going to lead to asking me about Hitler or Bin Laden. And I will say they should get life in prison, but if they were killed in combat, well, they were there so oh well. Why should they get life in prison? Bin Ladin ordered the attacks, but there were people who chose to obey him instead of ratting him out to people who could stop the attacks. By your logic, Bin Ladin ought to get 30-40 years and the guys who carried out the attacks should get life. Bin Ladin should get less punishment because he just masterminded the attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 17:43:36 GMT -5
It should be relevant. Those who kill should get a bigger penalty than those who hire to kill, because they actually pulled the trigger. Conspiring to murder is just as bad as actually murdering. If you drive the getaway car, you're still conspiring to rob the bank. Same situation. Yeah, I'm sure she is not the first mentally disabled person to raise a child. A truly mentally handicapped person could not raise a child. I'm sorry. That's preposterous. Again, wouldn't be the first time someone either killed or had someone killed and they were determined to not have known their actions were wrong. Find me another case where someone "didn't know what they were doing" and conspired to murder someone in order to receive their insurance settlement. ... Stop it. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 17:46:10 GMT -5
It also depends on how many times you do something.
If you orchestrate let's say 5 bank robberies but don't actually rob them, then you should go to jail just as long as those who rob the bank.
If it is just one time, then you should get less, but if you continually do it then you should be punished more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Sept 25, 2010 17:54:06 GMT -5
It also depends on how many times you do something. If you orchestrate let's say 5 bank robberies but don't actually rob them, then you should go to jail just as long as those who rob the bank. If it is just one time, then you should get less, but if you continually do it then you should be punished more. This is MURDER. We do not tolerate murder in this country, because we are not barbarians. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 25, 2010 17:55:40 GMT -5
It also depends on how many times you do something. If you orchestrate let's say 5 bank robberies but don't actually rob them, then you should go to jail just as long as those who rob the bank. If it is just one time, then you should get less, but if you continually do it then you should be punished more. Let's say I cook up a plot to blow up a large office building. I get 3-4 other people to go in on the plan. I sit at home out of the way, they plant the bomb, they blow up the building and several hundred people get killed. The 3-4 guys who planted the bomb get caught a few miles away. They rat me out and I get arrested. You're saying the guys who actually planted the bomb should get a worse punishment than me? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 17:58:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 18:00:03 GMT -5
It also depends on how many times you do something. If you orchestrate let's say 5 bank robberies but don't actually rob them, then you should go to jail just as long as those who rob the bank. If it is just one time, then you should get less, but if you continually do it then you should be punished more. This is MURDER. We do not tolerate murder in this country, because we are not barbarians. Which is why they should be locked up for the rest of their lives. We don't have to kill them, we choose to because we are a blood lust nation. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 18:01:22 GMT -5
It also depends on how many times you do something. If you orchestrate let's say 5 bank robberies but don't actually rob them, then you should go to jail just as long as those who rob the bank. If it is just one time, then you should get less, but if you continually do it then you should be punished more. Let's say I cook up a plot to blow up a large office building. I get 3-4 other people to go in on the plan. I sit at home out of the way, they plant the bomb, they blow up the building and several hundred people get killed. The 3-4 guys who planted the bomb get caught a few miles away. They rat me out and I get arrested. You're saying the guys who actually planted the bomb should get a worse punishment than me? If you are doing this, I'm sure it is not your first crime. Anyways, they get life and you get life with the possibility of parole. |
|
|
|
Post by instantclassic on Sept 25, 2010 18:04:34 GMT -5
This is MURDER. We do not tolerate murder in this country, because we are not barbarians. Which is why they should be locked up for the rest of their lives. We don't have to kill them, we choose to because we are a blood lust nation. No, if you knowing and willingly take a persons life, you should have your life taken from you. What lesson does it teach people that if you kill some one in cold blood you get to live? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 18:10:54 GMT -5
Which is why they should be locked up for the rest of their lives. We don't have to kill them, we choose to because we are a blood lust nation. No, if you knowing and willingly take a persons life, you should have your life taken from you. What lesson does it teach people that if you kill some one in cold blood you get to live? What does it say about the death penalty that the states that have it, have a higher murder rate than states that do not have it? |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 25, 2010 18:11:00 GMT -5
She obviously thought that she was going to get the money after they died. Why wouldn't it enter her head that "Oh hey, you know, maybe I won't really get the money because I'll be sitting in jail or be executed for doing this." This is quite possibly the dumbest argument ever. You're saying she's intellectually- disabled because she didn't think she would get caught? By that argument every single person who commits a crime and thinks they'll get away with it qualifies as mentally intellectually- disabled. Big, huge, gigantic difference between trying to hire a hitman and actually hiring one and them doing the job. Huge difference. This man plea bargained to avoid the death penalty. Did you read the article? The article clearly says that they could've given him the death penalty for what he did, but he plea bargained instead. Umm, the guy got 8 years in jail according to the article. You linked a bunch of articles about people who merely tried to hire hitmen, not that actually did and one article referring to a guy who could've got the death penalty, but plea bargained. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Sept 25, 2010 18:11:55 GMT -5
Let's say I cook up a plot to blow up a large office building. I get 3-4 other people to go in on the plan. I sit at home out of the way, they plant the bomb, they blow up the building and several hundred people get killed. The 3-4 guys who planted the bomb get caught a few miles away. They rat me out and I get arrested. You're saying the guys who actually planted the bomb should get a worse punishment than me? If you are doing this, I'm sure it is not your first crime. Anyways, they get life and you get life with the possibility of parole. That's not the point. Do I get a worse punishment than the people who planted the bomb or less? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 18:14:43 GMT -5
She obviously thought that she was going to get the money after they died. Why wouldn't it enter her head that "Oh hey, you know, maybe I won't really get the money because I'll be sitting in jail or be executed for doing this." This is quite possibly the dumbest argument ever. You're saying she's intellectually- disabled because she didn't think she would get caught? By that argument every single person who commits a crime and thinks they'll get away with it qualifies as mentally intellectually- disabled. Big, huge, gigantic difference between trying to hire a hitman and actually hiring one and them doing the job. Huge difference. This man plea bargained to avoid the death penalty. Did you read the article? The article clearly says that they could've given him the death penalty for what he did, but he plea bargained instead. Umm, the guy got 8 years in jail according to the article. You linked a bunch of articles about people who merely tried to hire hitmen, not that actually did and one article referring to a guy who could've got the death penalty, but plea bargained. No, I am not saying that is what makes her mentally handicapped. The guy got 8 years for a probation violation for another crime. So why didn't she get to plea bargain to avoid the death penalty? Or did she and we just aren't hearing about it? |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Sept 25, 2010 18:16:21 GMT -5
If you are doing this, I'm sure it is not your first crime. Anyways, they get life and you get life with the possibility of parole. That's not the point. Do I get a worse punishment than the people who planted the bomb or less? Depends on if this is your first time being a domestic terrorist. As I said "they get life and you get life with the possibility of parole." If this is not your first time, then you get life without parole. |
|
