Several posters have stated a son is welcome to kill an alleged rapist of his mother.
Would this apply to other family members?
If the son tells his friends, can they kill for him?
Here is an example of where this vigilante ‘justice’ leads to:
The vigilante action was most severe on the Paulsgrove estate in Portsmouth, where protesters circulated a list of 20 alleged sex offenders in the community and proceeded to target them.
The crowds - 40 of whom were later charged with offences - smashed windows, torched cars and forced five families wrongly identified as harbouring sex offenders out of their homes. A suspected paedophile in nearby Southampton shot himself dead and a female registrar was hounded from her South Wales home because neighbours confused “paediatrician” with "paedophile."
But it’s not an example of what was going on in this case. This was not a mob roaming the streets looking for someone to be outraged at. This was one guy, precisely targetting a single man who had attacked him personally and who he knew to be guilty.
Note also that the question in this thread is not whether the man in question committed a crime in killing his mother’s rapist or even if he deserved to be punished - that’s all taken as read. The question is, was he morally justified in doing so and was his punishment reasonable?
Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong on both points. He targetted a man who was accused of attacking someone else based on nothing but the unsubstanciated testimony of his mother. We do not know if his mother was raped, if she was raped we do not know if the neighbor did it, and we have no evidence outside of his attackers testimony that the accused(NOT convicted, but acccused-please do try to remember this extremely important point) made any sort of confession whatsoever to the son. What we do have is a “news story” that wouldn’t have been accepted as written by any respectable newspaper. Notice how they describe someone who never got the chance to defend himself in court-“Sexbeast.”
This whole thread is turning my stomach. Dopers defending vigilanteism? The prefered penalty for rape is either slow, torturous death or complete removal of the genitalia? What would be the proper penalty if the guy had raped the mother, then removed her genitalia, and then tortured her to death? We go braveheart on his ass, except without that pesky mercy at the end?
You people are sick.
First off, killing your mom’s rapist is uncool in that now mom gets to worry about you in jail for years. Did you get raped in jail? Does that justify mom shooting the inmate who raped you in cold blood when he gets out? Now she’s in jail, but she was the original rape victim. How is any of this helping anybody?
I would have thrown the book at the kid. It seems to me the kid brought the cricket bat with him. That’s murder. If you intentionally attack a person, and they die, then that’s murder. You don’t get to say “I aimed for his shoulder” when you shoot someone dead, and thus get to plead manslaughter because your intent wasn’t to kill. IANAL, but I’m pretty sure that’s not how it works.
He was on drugs, so it’s his fault he died from his injuries? So I suppose I could swing an axe at the face of a blind man, and if it happens to hit him and kill him, that’s the blindness’ fault.
Mom is a sick puppy for being proud of her murdering son. Nice childrearing, that law and order are not a priority for her son.
However, if the man were taken to trial, acquitted, and the mother and son still truly believed in their heart that he was guilty, I’d be willing to go manslaughter on the conviction, assuming the same confrontation. Going immediately for street justice must be discouraged above all else. Correcting a failure of the system? Sometimes a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do, and sometimes a man’s gotta do jail time. That’s just the way it is. Unfortunately, in this case, he never let the system have a crack at the guy. Not cool in any way.
I would guess he got off a murder charge on provocation. That’s a reduction from Murder to Manslaughter, but in effect, all that gives is discretion to the judge
Murder: Life in prison (More like 20 years)
Manslaughter: UP TO Life in prison (Judge can take other factors into account when sentencing)
I don’t think he did the right thing, but you have to admit that the circumstances were quite condusive for the manslaughter. Provocation especially is a nasty thing to deal with because you’re basically saying that the victim was “asking for it”. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but the defendant’s behavious is understandable, if not excusable.
Certainly, the matter needs to be brought to a legal judgment (if only to verify that the facts are as stated). If so, it sounds like a textbook situation for jury nullification.
You’re right…she’s sick because she shouldn’t do anything but don a black veil for the death of the man that RAPED her.
Yes, it’s legally wrong what the kid did and perhaps he should be punished for it; however, I’ve noticed that there ends up a gap between law and justice. Regardless, I’m not shedding any tears for the worthless dead bastard either (who not only confessed to doing it, but actually took a bit of a smug pleasure in it)…maybe karma does have its place afterall.
Would I have done it in the same situation? I’ve learned to never say what I’d do in an emergency situation because I’m not thinking the way I would in that emergency situation, but I sure the hell would have been thinking about it. And if I did it, I’d accept my punishment in the same way that I believe “better judged than 12 than carried by 6” (not that it would be self-defense, of course, but I accept my fate).
He certainly would have been better off in the US, since either the DA may not have charged him or else the jury may have hung.
beergeek279 you might want see someone about that twitching knee.
To recap, Ellis Dee expressed the opinion that she was a ‘sick puppy’ for applauding her son having committed murder (or manslaughter, if that makes you feel better). Not the same thing at all. I don’t know if I’d go that far, but there is something wrong, IMO, with someone who would do so. All this could have been avoided if she had gone to the authorities after the rape happned.
No one, as far as I can see, is demanding that you shed a tear for the guy who was killed, but read the article again. As the article is worded, there is no indication, other than the son’s own testimony, that the guy did in fact confess, or that he was smug about it.
There was no ‘emergency situation’ other than the one created by the son himself, who clearly went looking for the other man with intent to do grevious bodily harm. These events happened a week after the alleged rape, fer cryin’ out loud.
Complete non-sequiter. Again, there is no indication from the article that the son was in any physical danger from the man he confronted. Indeed, it appears the opposite was the case.
I think he’s guilty of manslaughter. He came with a cricket bat- he obviously came to strike the accused but not necessarily cause his death. Obviously, the circumstances need to be considered but we cannot condone vigilantism. Personally, I’d give him 5 years.
I acknowledged that it wasn’t the right thing to do…there should have been a trial first. Perhaps the son is full of it, but personally I’d see an honors student as a lot more creditable than a junkie, so I’ll assume that he was not lying (as a juror may well do). He broke the law in killing him (and I know he just wanted to give him a good beating, which I’d certainly have no problem with), but overall, was justice served (in the abstract sense of justice, as an ideal similar to love or honor)? Since it wasn’t the boy’s intent to murder and he died by accident, is it really that ethically/morally different than him dying in a car accident (which most people would consider a just desert “Rapist killed in automobile accident”)? Personally, I wish he hadn’t been killed, but overall the world is just a little better off without someone like this around.
OK, I meant more a “state of heightened adrenaline”, “state of higher emotion”, whatever. I just think that it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that “In this far out situation, I would absolutely do this” because when most people say that they’re in a calm, rational manner and not in an adrenaline-fueled fight-or-flight mode, and hindsight is always 20/20. So, would I have done this if this had happened to my mother? I’m just saying that I wouldn’t reject the possibility entirely out of hand.
I agree this was self-defense in no way (though who’s to say that the deceased wouldn’t have attacked him when he turned his back?). I’m just saying that if someone is angry enough to kill (and I certainly don’t blame the young man for being since I’ll assume just about anyone would be beside themselves) and they feel that a love one is threatened (once again, this is just conjecture), then they’re going to make sure that person is safe and consequences be damned…if someone threatened one of my loved ones, I’d do anything to make sure they were safe.
As Czarcasm already noted, this was not a response to a personal attack and he did not know the man was guilty.
Given he killed a man by himself, it hardly matters it wasn’t a mob either.
Please note that the mob in my cite knew exactly what they were doing - the woman they attacked had admitted being a paediatrician. :rolleyes:
Funnily enough, that’s exactly the opposite of what I learn from the case.
Here we have a man who doesn’t go to the law, but commits a vigilante killing.
I feel sorry for anyone who is told a member of their family has been raped, but this was murder, with some extenuating circumstances.
Now if the case had gone to court, a jury had found someone guilty and then the son had stood up and shot the rapist, that would be the case you’re thinking of.
That is a good point. IF he came with the bat, then that is premeditation with intent to cause great bodily harm but not necessarily kill. IF the bat just happened to be in reach when he reached the victim, I could buy a temporary insanity defense.
That’s a reach. He talked to the guy first. That means he hadn’t just gone over with the intent to beat the guy, he wanted the truth of the accusation. He would have been expecting a denial, however unconvincing, but instead he got a gloating admission.
Actually, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the rapist was hoping to provoke a violent reaction so he could sue the family and get off the hook himself. “They’ll say anything - they’re psychos, they hate me, they beat me up with a bat for no reason!” He fatally misread the situation, is all.
Oh, piss, I missed something out. What I mean by this is that he’d taken the bat to get the information with menaces, but when the guy admitted it freely and gloatingly he completely lost it and used the bat he had to hand.
spooje, while it’s entirely possible that the rape story was false, I really don’t see how that changes the facts of the situation regarding the son’s punishment. Had they been arguing about a chess game or who caught the biggist fish, my opinion is the same, that the punishment was appropriate. If a man strikes another man and through no direct action of the attacker, the victim dies; isn’t that generally the very definition of manslaughter?
Now as for the act being morally wrong, I think we must start with the assumption that the facts presented are true. Otherwise, we have no basis to even start a debate. Upon rereading the story, I don’t really know if what the son did was morally wrong or not. I don’t think the story linked has enough detail on exactly what happened to tell. Did the son go to his neighbors house to assault him or to see what the guys version of the story was? Did he bring the bat, or was it just within reach? Until these are answered, I withdraw my previously posted opinion and reserve judgement unless somebody has further knowledge that they wish to share.
No, IANAL but I’m pretty sure this is incorrect. Murder is all about intent. If you intend to harm or kill somebody, and they die, that’s murder. If you intended no bodily harm or ill will in any way, that’s manslaughter.
For example, if I swerve onto the sidewalk to run over my mother’s rapist, intending to break some bones but not kill him, and he dies from a heart attack due to his high cholestoral and the stress of being run over, that’s murder. If I’m changing the radio station and accidentally swerve onto the sidewalk, with the same result, that’s manslaughter.
Also, is death really the proper punishment for rape? I would think jail would be ideal. Don’t rapists get raped in jail? If rape is really worse than death, then isn’t jail an even better punishment than death?
I doubt your defence that you were ‘changing radio stations and the car swerved and just happened to hit one person who you thought was your mother’s rapist’ would stand up in court as manslaughter.
What an amazing combination: ‘proper punishment’ and ‘rapists getting raped in jail’. :rolleyes: