A pre-meditated murder (what’s the correct spelling?)
Murder/killing done as a whim.
The number one would be like a guy who is planning to murder someone and acts accordingly. The number two would be like someone a bit more aggressive than normal people and might seriously hurt someone when angered, possibly even kill.
What is your opinion and why? Please do use more then one perspective if you’d like. And why do people get more years from pre-meditated murder (well they do atleast here in Finland) ?
I don’t have much time now so I’ll post my stance on this later. Oh and I didn’t want to make this a poll since it might make some people too lazy to answer
I would tend to believe the man w/o the will power to control himself.
Then again if the one who plans methodically is going to rape, etc. that is the worst case.
I would rather die by someone’s hand who used cool logic as opposed to someones outlandish rage.
Also, who is to say that when one plans and kills another that they shall keep killing?
Because it is considered that someone who made a rational choice, weighed the pros and cons, and chose to kill has a serious problem, as one should never come to that conclusion. The premed killer is the hardest to rehabillitate, I think, as a rage killer can just get some anger counseling.
First off, I don’t trust whimsical murderers. One moment you are laughing, having a grand ole time, and quite dead the next.
Premeditated murderers could be more dangerous depending on what they were premeditating.
Was this ‘murder on a whim’ simply a mistake? A bar brawl gone sour? Or is it something like, ‘what a beautiful morning, I think I feel a murder coming on (now would this be premeditated?).’
I don’t know Spath, it all sounds a little dangerous to me.
what scares me versus what i think is most dangerous to society are opposite. i fear the murder that i can never foresee (hence i could never prevent), i want to know what is going to happen but the whimsical murder can never be detected.
the society should fear the premeditated murder more as these are the type that are less frequently caught. more planning means they are more likely to get away with it. also leading to repeat offenses possibly.
likewise, the ‘murder on a whim’ will have more superficial reasons for the action than the premeditated one. i would imagine that this would make it easier to correct as it could be, as stated before, just an anger management type of scenario.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
^
I think that you guys came here to talk about your personal opinions about a certain english word. But if you want to learn about what you are trying to talk about, I’ve got a link listed here; it’s a good start for reading about the subject.
I didn’t think my question was so hard to understand, or do you people just like to rip all things apart from their context? (referring to oldphil) This is not about a word. You can call killing whatever you like, like moomooing
My stance on the issue is much like thezeus and bishop’s.
Personally I’m more afraid of people who’s actions I can never be sure of. Someone who plotted to kill me wouldn’t be likely to tell me about it.
Society wise it seems clear that a person who is willingly ready to act against its laws and customs is more of a threat than someone who just cannot control his emotions from time to time. And as said it is easier to apply anger management than psychiatry to change someone’s willful behaviour.
However I’d think that there are a lot more number two guys than number one. So it actually might be that the number two guys are causing more deaths/injuries than number one guys. I’m just speculating here and I have no statistics to back this up (that’s why it’s speculation ). So wouldn’t, in fact, the number two guys be more trouble to the society (If my assumption is correct) ?
I would say pre-meditated murder is more dangerous because it implies sane people unphased by morals killing precisley whereas whim murders are isolated mental illness cases.
lets first get the #1 and #2 guys straight, which requires just a tad bit of semantics.
murder-1st degree: premeditated intent on killing
murder-2nd degree: sudden (not premeditated) intent on killing
murder-3rd degree (manslaughter): accidental killing
this thread has only really been dealing with 1st and 2nd degree. so as was asked, here are some stat’s about which is more common, and thus implied that whichever is greater in number is a greater harm to society as a whole.
sorry for such a small study but it was the only study i could find at all.
if this area were to be extrapolated onto the larger of society it would mean that 2nd degree murder (non-premeditated) is a slightly greater harm. although the difference is quite small when looking at percentages and because of that i don’t think that this criteria is solid enough to be a deciding factor.
Hard to say. I think that the second one is more dangerous than first one. Why? Because you have a time-bomb under a “nice guy” image, and you will never know when something will hit the trigger. Can be even a push! The pre-meditated murder usually is needing more then a push to make him come after you, IMO
Thanks for the statistics bishop. And now for another thing I thought of some time ago.
Quantitative data suggests that the 2nd type killings are more dangerous to society.
But what about qualitative harm? Surely murders strike fear into the hearts of men. The hysteria and panic massmurderers can raise is phenominal. Even great enough to create legends everyone can remember.
Then again people who are known to be unpredictable and aggressive tend to keep people around the jumpy all the time.
Murders can effect many lives for some time and can be for those close to the victims very painful. 2nd types are an ever-lasting nuissance to the people around them, unless they seek or are made to accept therapeutic help. I’d say that the 1st degree is in that sense much more harmful.
Oh I could draw a wonderfully constructed but a crappy looking model of the emotional harm these buggers inflict. Circles and groups. Mmmm… Social psychology…
I’d like to mirror Kriswest’s sentiment. I was once given the task of answering the question, “Which of the seven deadly sins is the worst?”, catholicism aside my answer is the same here. The result of whether or not the murderer commits the crime with or without purpose has no bearing on the situation since the crime is committed either way.
Perhaps the ‘why’ is of no consequence. Certainly both results endanger society, how would one judge which murder/death was worse for society and which was better? How can either of these options be better than the other?
