happy birthday motherfucker.

Swayzeee:"Thought it ironic. If a person killing another, does more good than harm to society, should that truly be a crime? Even if it was previously set as a crime, wouldn't the circumstances point elsewhere?

Way to move directly into a morally/ethically grey area. The simple answer is no. Killing is wrong, always. What right does anyone else (including governments and communities) have to take away someone else's life? Strictly speaking, none. As far as his death doing more good than harm, I bet he would fucking beg to differ. All those poor bastards get to keep living their shitty government controlled lives, and it is seriously questionable that the quality of their life is going to skyrocket so high that it truly justifies the death of one person. Not to mention that the State is just going to send some other asshole to make their lives miserable again. It might even make it worse, so I see no gain being likely.

Now I know I sound like I'm backing the Chinese government here of something but I'm not. The kind of socially changing outcome that would justify killing would need to be massive. And it would require a hell of a lot more killing and death to achieve it. One person isn't going to do it.

As far as it being criminal, it gets back to the point that, as a society, we have a contract, and part of that is not killing each other even if justified. Once it becomes ok to kill someone for "justifiable" reasons, you've moved out of a concrete rule(killing is bad) and into the grey(killing is ok sometimes). Now, murder is justified as long as it is perceived to do more good than harm. And then you have the problem of who defines or measures the good and harm? Once you reach that point, it seems that whoever is in the majority will the deciders, and then you have the Holocaust.

Thank you and good night.

Thanks Justin.. Saw that coming.. I heard you liked "my bands" newest song >.>
This wasn't originally my question I just wanted a few more opinions on the subject.. Because if you think about it standard law should be set to to where it benefits most of the society/ in which the majority of society agrees upon. Which in this case, murder is bad, a crime committed against society that views murder as bad has gotten what 'they' say has given them more good than bad. So far that they would petition the courts for a lighter sentence..

If in the case the defendent gets off on a lighter sentence.. then there would be different levels of murder rather than the already set standards. There would be those in which do more good than bad so you get off on a lighter sentence... and those that all of society views as wrong so you get the maximum penalty. Thats where I find the irony. If there are no grey areas already, then how does one get off with a lighter penalty rather than serving the full and maximum sentence for committing the ultimate crime? Even if he doesnt get the lighter sentence, there are still those who believe he should. Meaning there are those who viewed that him committing murder in this case is not as bad as the idea of murder itself due to the circumstances.

Um, ok so I'm going to try to untangle the what you said best I can...

First as far as grey area, lighter sentences, and such, we have to understand that their judicial system is different from ours. They may have rules, since it is a communist country, that allows for the people to petition the government when it comes to sentences (although I doubt it). Cultural/systematic differences aside, I fail to see how having varying degrees of a crime, murder in this case, equals a grey area. If the standards are set, like they are in the US system, all incidents of murder are punishable, unless you have an affirmative defense(self defense). The set standards don't waver under the pressure of the populous. For there to be a change to the system, it takes time, and therefore singular incidents of major popular support don't change the system. The system is more sound if the movement to change it is lasting and deliberate.

Now, here in the US, if this incident had happened the teen would be charged with 1st degree murder. The sentencing for which would vary by state but lets just say it's typically 25-life/death penality. So built into the system is a varying degree of what he can be sentenced to. That variation doesn't make for a grey area, the punishment is still fucking harsh. I didn't read the article but I'm guessing the people are asking for him to receive less than whatever the typical punishment for murder is.

Now while asking for a lighter sentence does cause a greyish area, it's not built into most justice systems. And it's not as grey as asking for him not to be charged or tried.

As far as what you find ironic; I'm not patient enough to piece together your fragmented ideas. What morals are you talking about? And how are we supposed to apply our morals to a culturally foreign system, as if all morals are the same? What's the irony? Why mention the lighter sentence? Why do supporters of pro-life murders argue defense of others as an excuse to their crimes? Clear these things up for me

You don't change Chinatown. It changes you.

Why so serious?

Hmm.. I like it.