Reports of recent violence against Americans of Middle Eastern heritage has gotten me thinking. Many murders have been committed in the name of racism or twisted religious interpretation. I could very well see, for example, a hardcore KKKer try to argue in court that since African-Americans aren’t human, he didn’t kill a human being, and therefore did not commit murder, or a mentally unstable Christian fanatic claim that since God hates homosexuals, it was perfectly justified for him to kill one. He might argue that since Americans generally believe that God exists, who are they to go against the direct will of their Creator (especially if the killer believes that God Himself gave the order directly to him)?
Now, I know that only the most idiotic or delusional try to defend themselves in court, and most judges, I believe, would force the latter type of defendant to get a lawyer. But has anyone ever tried this kind of defense? I don’t think I have to ask whether it worked, but I am curious as to how any such individuals might have tried to push such arguments through the legal system.
Heck, I once read about someone who tried to sue Satan, and was rejected on the grounds that the defendant did not reside in the state. I’d like to see just how such inflammatory arguments are treated. Thanks in advance!
I don’t know about any legal defence, but I once had a boyfriend (briefly) who treated me like crap. When I argued that, as a Catholic, he couldn’t treat me like that, he said that since I wasn’t Catholic, I didn’t exist in the eyes of God, therefore he could do whatever he liked to me, and God wouldn’t care. You can only commit sins against people who exist.
I’m sure someone, somewhere has though of using this argument to defend their actions. I just can’t see anyone else buying it.
Well, you could use it as a legal defense if you’re surrounded by judges who believe like you.
This is also off the OP’s question, but in light of the above responses may I recommend the book “The True Believer” by Eric Hoffer.
It was published in 1951, but after Sept. 11 it reads like it was written yesterday.
WARNING: You might not want to touch this book if you consider yourself a fundamentalist anything.
On second thought, wasn’t this defense implied in the Emmit Till case?
I recall the defense closed by telling the all white jury they knew the right Anglo-Saxon thing to do…return with a not guilty verdict. That verdict was supplied.
That “relationship” lasted 6 weeks when I was 17. Major, heavy-duty, full time jerk that he was, he put on a good front for a while. Once he showed his true colours, I was out of there.
You could use such a defense if lucky enough to be tried in a country where the government officially recognized such a belief.
Since the U.S. Judicial system recognizes all HomoSapiens equally, it doesn’t matter what your personal belief is, you’ll be tried by their belief system.
If you kidnap your ex-girlfriend from her college dorm and fly her to Afghanistan you could get her tried (and probably executed) for attending college.
