[No joke pls] Is it a crime or justifiable?

[CheertheSecond]

I have been thinking about this lately.

Say if you kill someone, you are a murderer, but if there is a legit reason for the murdering then is it still a murder?

Say you scam a gullible person and they agreed with your outrageous deal, then is it still a scam or just stupid people making stupid decision?

Yeah, I admit I am not a smart person, but can you take sometimes and explain to me?

 

[Prince_Azmiran_Myrian]

For the killing, I don't think self-defense is murder.
For the 'scam', predatory deals or contracts aren't really justifiable. It's taking advantage of someone.

 

[Syringe]

My information comes from my studies in Australian Law.

Murder is still murder. In the law you have two things that make up the crime. The Mens Rea (Intention) and the Actus Reus (physical action, which in this case is the killing of another person). In the end, you still intentionally planned to murder a person regardless of circumstance (unless there's a self-defence element involved). An accident for example would turn it into manslaughter because the intention (Mens Rea) was never to kill someone, but the actus reus still doesn't change because you still did kill someone.

A scam is considered a scam not because of an outrageous deal. People will literally pay thousands for a piece of steak. A scam is when you're intentionally misleading people to make them cough up money your way, usually without fulfilling your end of the bargain or simply using a trick to take money (i.e, the African Oil Prince Scam where scammers asked for % of money to open a locked oil prince's account, promising to pay X back. Looks lucrative and too good to be true).

 

[ThrillingHuman]

Say if you kill someone, you are a murderer, but if there is a legit reason for the murdering then is it still a murder?

murder in self-defense is murder. Murder during war is murder. Even murder of noisy neighbours during a Sunday morning is murder even if they had it coming. How they are viewed or punished (or rewarded) depends on the situation, but murder is murder nonetheless

Say you scam a gullible person and they agreed with your outrageous deal, then is it still a scam or just stupid people making stupid decision?

scam is scam. If your deal is dishonest and fraudulent - it doesn't matter how stupid the victim is, it is still a scam.
On the other hand, if your deal is honest, although not profitable, it is a deal. That's why so many bubbles exist.

 

[CheertheSecond]

My information comes from my studies in Australian Law.

Murder is still murder. In the law you have two things that make up the crime. The Mens Rea (Intention) and the Actus Reus (physical action, which in this case is the killing of another person). In the end, you still intentionally planned to murder a person regardless of circumstance (unless there's a self-defence element involved). An accident for example would turn it into manslaughter because the intention (Mens Rea) was never to kill someone, but the actus reus still doesn't change because you still did kill someone.

A scam is considered a scam not because of an outrageous deal. People will literally pay thousands for a piece of steak. A scam is when you're intentionally misleading people to make them cough up money your way, usually without fulfilling your end of the bargain or simply using a trick to take money (i.e, the African Oil Prince Scam where scammers asked for % of money to open a locked oil prince's account, promising to pay X back. Looks lucrative and too good to be true).

I see. So the intention makes a crime, not the action.

 

[Syringe]

I see. So the intention makes a crime, not the action.

Both in the case for a loss of life, but mostly the action because someone actually has to die for it to be manslaughter/murder. Without it you can be charged for conspiracy of a murder, etc.

On the other hand an example of a crime committed where the intention doesn't matter is a traffic crime, like running a red light. Your intention doesn't matter here. What matters is that you DID cross that red light.

 

[CheertheSecond]

For the killing, I don't think self-defense is murder.
For the 'scam', predatory deals or contracts aren't really justifiable. It's taking advantage of someone.

murder in self-defense is murder. Murder during war is murder. Even murder of noisy neighbours during a Sunday morning is murder even if they had it coming. How they are viewed or punished (or rewarded) depends on the situation, but murder is murder nonetheless


scam is scam. If your deal is dishonest and fraudulent - it doesn't matter how stupid the victim is, it is still a scam.
On the other hand, if your deal is honest, although not profitable, it is a deal. That's why so many bubbles exist.

Then what about enticing someone into having intercourse with you? Assuming that is your initial decision but later you decided to settle down with that person?

 

[Deleted member 54065]

Then what about enticing someone into having intercourse with you? Assuming that is your initial decision but later you decided to settle down with that person?

I don't think there's anything wrong with that and that person agrees (and is old enough to know what he/she is doing); after all, sex is a human need, no matter what is your latter decision.

As for the earlier questions, murder is murder. Scam is a scam. For self-defense, one cannot deny the act of murder in court once it is proven; we just have to justify why we did it. Same goes for soldiers on the battlefield. War is basically state-sanctioned murder, though no one is usually prosecuted (unless there's probable cause for 'use of excessive force') because the state ordered it.

For scams, even if the person agrees to it, there is a malicious intent (and this should be proven in court) on the part of the scammer, so it is a scam even if the entire family of the one who got scammed agreed to it.

 

[Syringe]

Then what about enticing someone into having intercourse with you? Assuming that is your initial decision but later you decided to settle down with that person?

That isn't a crime though if both parties consent, and then decide to stay with each other later on. It's like falling in love after a one night stand, and suddenly wanting to become closer with each other.

Unless by settle down you mean refuse intercourse? Then it does becomes a crime if you continue. It's a bit hard to tell what you mean exactly, but if both parties consent then it's all good.

 

[Deleted member 54065]

I see. So the intention makes a crime, not the action.

Yes, this is correct.

That's why criminal cases often get downgraded (or the punishment is lowered) once the court determines the intent of the person who committed the crime. For example, if the accused proved he killed a person accidentally, a murder case is downgraded to homicide.

Another perfect example are 'insanity pleas'. If the accused was able to prove to the court that he/she did it because he/she was 'incapable of rational thinking' at the time of the commission of the crime, that person goes free, usually.

 

[ThrillingHuman]

Then what about enticing someone into having intercourse with you? Assuming that is your initial decision but later you decided to settle down with that person?

That'd just courtship. What's so fraufulent about that

 

[owotrucked]

Is [a murder] a crime?

Crime's definition: an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.
If you live in a lawless society, then nothing can be defined as crime.

Is [a murder] justifiable?

justifiable: able to be shown to be right or reasonable; defensible.
Every action is justifiable, regardless of what consequence they bring. Just because a murder is justifiable from a subjective point of view doesn't mean people will give you a free pass.

Say if you kill someone, you are a murderer, but if there is a legit reason for the murdering then is it still a murder?

murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
If you do a murder, you're a murderer. If you kill people, you're a killer lol.

A "legit" reason is subjective. It may affect the way a murderer is dealt with, but it doesn't change the definition of a murder.

Say you scam a gullible person and they agreed with your outrageous deal, then is it still a scam or just stupid people making stupid decision?

scam: a dishonest scheme; a fraud.
fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.

If you scam someone, it's a scam.

If you bring the outrageous deal while respecting all lawful requirements, it's technically not a scam.

---

Though questions of crime and morality overlap, crimes are objective circumstances that relate to law. Morality is subjective and can vary for individuals, but laws are like written down morality. It's a convention that is imposed upon all citizens. (The content of laws may be subjective, but the fact that you follow them or not is objective)

Morals are subjective rules that a community agrees to follow. Failure to comply to your community morals will result in distrust, as you're likely to harm the community again. It is easier to get rid of a distrusted element, than mending a relationship/rebuilding trust.

That's why breaking morals and laws is more likely to result in your removal (banishment/exile/execution), than rehabilitation (needing to chaperone your ass to assess your trustworthiness).

Let's say you're my neighbor and you just murdered someone. Sure, you might never murder again and contribute greatly to the world, but what guarantees that you won't murder me if even law couldn't stop you from murdering before? It's not worth the hassle, so I'd rather you stay far from me.

murder in self-defense is murder. Murder during war is murder.

In my country, you're legally allowed to kill in self-defense if your life is threatened by illegal actions against you. Likewise, killing during war is technically legal since it's pushed by the government/law. Even if it results in death, legal actions cannot be technically be called murder. Maybe the term lawful homicide is used.

 

[LilRora]

Law in many countries is such that if you kill a burglar in self-defense, you are fully eligible for prison sentence no matter how or why that happened. The circumstances, such as intent of people involved, can lessen the severity of the crime, but it remains a crime. If it's about justifying killing someone, however, you can justify just about anything - it's just that it doesn't matter before law unless you present definite evidence that you were innocent.

Law works in a way that the thoughts and intentions of people involved rarely matter; unless you can prove that you were tricked, backstabbed, and possibly bamboozled, law usually only sees the result. The same is with scams. Even if you know in hindsight that you were scammed, if you agree and sign a document, you would need to prove your judgement was impaired or that the scammer had malicious intentions to get anywhere with the case. Those people generally protect themselves from such attempts beforehand.

 

[Syringe]

Law works in a way that the thoughts and intentions of people involved rarely matter; unless you can prove that you were tricked, backstabbed, and possibly bamboozled, law usually only sees the result.

Yeah. Mens Rea is usual there to figure out the causality of the Actus Reus. I.e, what caused them to commit the crime, which then affects the sentencing (Innocent, lesser, guilty, or increases severity). Like how pleading for mental illness can reduce the sentencing since they technically had zero intention/obscured sense of reasoning, but still committed an atrocity and must follow through with a sentence. In the end, it doesn't change what was ultimately committed.

I like to think of the Intention/Mens Rea as a dial for the crime committed, but that still doesn't justify something like for example a genocide or mass killing.

 

[CadmarLegend]

murder in self-defense is murder. Murder during war is murder. Even murder of noisy neighbours during a Sunday morning is murder even if they had it coming. How they are viewed or punished (or rewarded) depends on the situation, but murder is murder nonetheless

It is undoubtedly true that taking another's life constitutes murder, and that the individual in question cannot be brought back to life, I concur with the notion that we must place greater emphasis on the circumstances surrounding the act. Whilst it may indeed hold true that taking a life is classified as murder, it is important for you to carefully consider the context under which such an act was committed. A vexing question that frequently arises is whether the life of a lunatic, who is menacingly holding an innocent family at gunpoint, holds equivalent value to the lives of those whom they are threatening. If you find yourself in a situation where your life or the lives of others are in imminent danger, self-defense may justify the use of lethal force as a means of protection. Similarly, as a soldier, you may be authorized to use lethal force in certain situations during times of war, as it is your duty to protect your country and its citizens. It is vital that you weigh the circumstances and act accordingly, mindful of the gravity of your actions.

I endeavor to convey that the concept of "murder" carries with it a plethora of moral intricacies and multifaceted processes. It is apparent that humans have striven to alleviate themselves of this burden, enacting Laws to provide clarity regarding what is deemed "right" or "wrong." These Laws offer a resolute, objective perspective as opposed to a subjective one. Nonetheless, due to the human element involved in crafting and implementing these Laws, inherent deficiencies permeate the system.

 

[AnonUnlimited]

I define murder and killing as two different things. Killing someone in self defense is therefore not a murder.

I can only see murder as justified if it is something like an assassination on a dictator who is causing more harm than good. There are a few that come to mind, but they shall not be named as that will go into the realm of politics.

Sometimes murdering dangerous people makes the world a better place.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I have no plans on committing murder. It's too much work and I still have a life to live.

 

[ObsequiumMinaris]

I have been thinking about this lately.

Say if you kill someone, you are a murderer, but if there is a legit reason for the murdering then is it still a murder?

Say you scam a gullible person and they agreed with your outrageous deal, then is it still a scam or just stupid people making stupid decision?

Yeah, I admit I am not a smart person, but can you take sometimes and explain to me?

Prefacing this with the usual disclaimers, just in case - I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Everything I know regarding this topic comes from secondhand knowledge. Do not take legal advice from strangers on the internet.

That being established, in the United States, at least, justifiable homicide is a thing that exists. What this means is exactly what it sounds like - you killed someone, but due to circumstances, you are claiming justifiable homicide, which is basically you admitting that you murdered somebody, but because of circumstances outside your control, you had no choice and therefore it was justified. This is not a get-out-of-jail-free-card - even in the United States, self defense, particularly when it ends with someone dead, is an affirmative defense almost all the time. What that means is that, if you defend yourself, probably ninety-nine times out of a hundred (we'll get to the one remaining time in a bit, don't worry), you're going to get arrested for it, then get taken down to the court house, then get charged with some form of homicide because you just killed someone. Then you and your legal team are going to work out a case for justifiable homicide so you don't end up in the slammer for the rest of your life. If everything goes well and it truly was justified, then your charges get dropped and you walk out of the courthouse a free man, but probably several tens of thousands of dollars poorer, because your lawyers just saved you from going to prison for life and they're going to want to get paid for that.

There are exceptions to this, of course. There are some cases that are so blatantly justifiable that no probably prosecutor in the country would bring charges against you for it. The recent Greenwood, Indiana shooting from last year comes to mind - basic gist there is that some madman tried to shoot up a mall with a rifle, killed a few people, and then got rightfully gunned down a few seconds later by an armed citizen who was concealed carrying a handgun and happened to be in the area. After killing the gunman, the citizen turned himself into police and was briefly taken into custody, but once it became clear what had happened, he was released and it was announced later that absolutely no charges would be filed against him, as what he did was very blatantly justifiable homicide - it doesn't get much more blatantly justifiable than "The guy I killed was actively murdering people right in front of me so I shot him dead before he could kill any more and it's all on camera so there's no doubt about what I did and why I did it." There have been a few cases like that over the years, but this is probably the most recent and most high-profile one.

If it's still a murder depends entirely on your definition of the word "Murder". The dictionary specifies that a murder is an unlawful killing. If your act is justifiable, then technically no, it is not murder, because it was not an unlawful killing. The law, at least in the United States, holds pretty firm with that sentiment, provided the reason for the justifiable homicide is actually legitimate. As previously stated, self-defense is an affirmative defense in the United States - most of the time, you will be arrested because you killed somebody, there will be an investigation to determine if it was justified, and depending on the findings of that investigation and the defense prepared by your legal team, you will hopefully be found to have acted lawfully and then be released without charges.

TL;DR - Depending on where you live in the world, there is absolutely such a thing as justifiable homicide, which is legally not a murder. So yes, there do exist scenarios in which it is possible to kill somebody and have it not be considered a murder, at least from a legal standpoint. From a moral standpoint, it probably depends entirely on who you're asking. But the law itself is pretty clear on the matter, again depending on where you live. Now let's all hope none of us ever have to make this kind of decision IRL.

 

[Sandycat135]

Scamming someone is deceptive and unethical, regardless of whether the victim falls for it willingly or not. Exploiting someone's trust or naivety for personal gain is wrong.

There are exceptions, of course. For example, my father is currently facing trial for fraud allegations. He's been falsely accused due to some misunderstandings in a complex financial transaction. So he's not guilty, but he's still on trial. We've hired a competent legal team, Oberheiden P.C., to defend him. And we're confident that the truth will prevail in court.

 

[Lysander_Works]

Some might say certain crimes are justifiable. All I have to say about it is, self-defense is not murder and is okay. If the country forbids it, I'd gtfo and go somewhere else.
Some go to murder as a revenge killing when the law fails to do its basic job (rare), and so the justice of it is lost on that person. I feel like it is a common sense thing though. If you feel it is wrong, it usually is.

 

[Deleted member 19066]