For me, it would depend upon why the State has not acted. If he got to the alleged rapist before the State did, that’s one thing; if the State did not act through negligence or corruption or similar, that’s another.
If the entirety of a trial can be summed up by a three sentence summary, then why even bother with trials?
Conviction. People can’t be given the freedom to enforce the law on their own. And the death penalty is not the solution, either.
If the husband can find the perp, then the police can take things over from there.
Vigilantism is a very bad thing.
Here in the UK, there’s a mitigating circumstance called diminished responsibility. So, if by ‘tracking down’, the husband had gone directly to the alleged rapist, even though that journey might have taken days, then diminished responsibility might well apply.
Not really. Am I supposed to believe that there wasn’t enough evidence to jail the guy for 35 years, but there is enough evidence to justify his being killed?
What’s your answer to all these questions?
In the US, the analogous concepts are provocation and voluntary manslaughter. But precedent has generally said that any amount of reflection–certainly a multi-day journey–provides enough time for a reasonable person to calm down. The defense has not generally been successful when used to justify abused women killing their husbands while the husband sleeps and the like, though there are some exceptions.
On these facts, the defense is quite unlikely to apply, though the defense might well be entitled to have the defense raised and instructed to the jury, and they would focus on proving that a reasonable man in these facts would not have had sufficient time to calm down. They would also have to prove that he did not, in fact, calm down. The suggestion in the OP that wife has PTSD etc. makes me think the hypo doesn’t involve tracking down the dude the same day or even necessarily the same week.
In the real world, facts cannot be summed up that way. In the world of hypotheticals, they can.
So the facts are what they are. But that says nothing about the nature of the evidence presented to the jury. It says nothing about what the defendant’s claims about what happened, or whether there was an actual confession on record.
So assuming the defendant has confessed, using the OP’s facts as a justification for the killing, I convict. But otherwise, it depends on the strength of the evidence that’s shown to me.
I’m of course assuming the evidence is clearly as the op presented. No question, I vote to convict. Doesn’t mean I wouldn’t want to help plot his prison escape.
What does the part about “whom she thought was a family friend” have to do with it?
That she knew exactly who the person was.
Yes. I might agree to a lower crime.
Now, if the husband walked in during the assault, then no. he’s free.
The time is the critical part.
I agree. Preventing a serious crime from occurring or stopping a serious crime in the middle of its commission is a different matter than enacting punishment for a crime after it’s over. Rape’s a serious crime and it justifies killing the rapist if that’s what’s necessary to stop it.
I am even going to give him minutes after it’s over. But not days.
Nah there was the evidence, the prosecutor was just a dick.
No it wasn’t. Very little evidence was presented in the OP. For one the definition of murder vs manslaughter is different from state to state. Is the prosecution only charging murder? Are there lesser included offenses? He is guilty of something but I would have to know more to say of what.
Of course not.
That still does not change the actions of the husband.
And your opinion on voting to convict?
I could be convinced to go for not guilty by reason of insanity or severe emotional distress or something like that. I could be convinced he just went there to talk to the guy and was attacked and had to kill him. I don’t know why the guy wasn’t in prison to start with. But as others said, until I’ve heard the testimony I couldn’t say just what I’d do.
My own somewhat-reluctant view as well. If the act met the standard for the venue’s legal definition of first-degree murder (and, it goes without saying, I was convinced by the evidence presented that the accused had committed this act), then I would vote guilty on that count.
I don’t mind admitting that if I also believed the alleged motivation (i.e. that the rape had occurred, and I would need to see some evidence for such), I might find myself looking for wiggle room to rationalize voting for a lesser charge. I’m very disinclined to nullify, though.
Absolutely I could give days if he were in pursuit or in transit.
If he’s confessed, I can’t believe there wouldn’t be some kind of plea bargain.
Yeah, I’m questioning the hypothetical. I don’t buy it. When there is plenty of evidence to assure a conviction on first degree murder, but some kind of mitigating factor that might affect sentencing (ie, get the judge to impose the very lightest sentence possible), it’s extraordinarily unlikely that the DA wouldn’t offer a plea bargain. By taking the crime down a notch, then offering a middle-to-high sentence, the DA gets him off the street for the same amount of time, and saves the trouble and expense of a trial, while the husband gets a little better treatment in prison by starting out with a different score as a lesser felon, and possibly gets a chance at parole earlier, if he behaves himself while in prison.
Maybe the hypothetical should be “If you were the DA, and had a slam-dunk 1st degree case against the husband, would you force him to trial, and take the chance that sympathetic jurors might not vote to convict in spite of the evidence, or would you offer him a plea bargain, knowing he’d probably be paroled much earlier.”