I'm no legal historian, but I wager that once we opened the precedent with "crimes of passion" as a legal defense that it was all downhill from there. Because its a real quick turnaround from "charges lowered because of intent" to increasing them too.
Which never made sense to me because someone who commits a crime of passion is just as likely, maybe more likely to reoffend because they lack self-control. If it's not the same crime it will be something else.
A common exception is the "guy catching his wife in bed with another man". In that case you can argue that any reasonable person would react the same way, but that's just a legal hack because we think it was justified then.
I mean, I've never heard it not used in the scenario you just described. Where a guy is in a situation where his emotions can overload so suddenly from such a level of disrespect that his actions are not indicative of his overall normal nature.
Which I don't disagree with either. There are some situations where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable and their actions therein shouldn't be held as heavy. Everybody's favorite dad Gary Plauche committed clear murder, but we can all see the "passion" that lead to it and don't want him to be truly punished for it. I'd even say the legal system was broken if it tried to be so rigid.
But the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people. Suddenly "a man committing violence after being cheated on" is on equal legal footing as "he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Again if we're arguing that it's a situation where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable (why Gary why), then I agree it's justifiable but that's a legal hack because they don't want to simply argue it was justifiable. There may or may not be intent and I don't consider it a crime of passion. (he couldn't help himself in the moment)
"he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Exactly. I didn't want to bother searching for examples where the defense has been used, but yeah that's about what I was thinking. I would gladly put such an animal down before executing a man who methodically planned out a murder. The latter case may or may not have mitigating circumstances. The former is an animal that shouldn't live among humans.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester. The crime was objectively egregious enough to justify vigilante justice. The state has no duty to execute your wife because she cheated on you or to execute a stranger because he cut you off on the road.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester
He was literally in cuffs getting off the plane to be taken to trial. Everyone has a right to trial to prove their guilt, even if its obvious and egregious of that guilt. Because as I said:
the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people.
I don't care about protecting pedos or criminal. Heck I think druggies should be executed en masse. But I know the moment we cut down those protections fully from even the corrupted state they are in now, it'll be used to kill all of us long before it kills the evil.
Both Gary and the cucked man had a similar situation. Highly emotional and extreme situations, in which they reacted in ways we can all understand. That's why "crime of passion" laws exist, so that those people can still be tried and convicted of their clear lawbreaking but not punished so wildly that everyone's sense of justice is perverted.
I'm no legal historian, but I wager that once we opened the precedent with "crimes of passion" as a legal defense that it was all downhill from there. Because its a real quick turnaround from "charges lowered because of intent" to increasing them too.
Which never made sense to me because someone who commits a crime of passion is just as likely, maybe more likely to reoffend because they lack self-control. If it's not the same crime it will be something else.
A common exception is the "guy catching his wife in bed with another man". In that case you can argue that any reasonable person would react the same way, but that's just a legal hack because we think it was justified then.
I mean, I've never heard it not used in the scenario you just described. Where a guy is in a situation where his emotions can overload so suddenly from such a level of disrespect that his actions are not indicative of his overall normal nature.
Which I don't disagree with either. There are some situations where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable and their actions therein shouldn't be held as heavy. Everybody's favorite dad Gary Plauche committed clear murder, but we can all see the "passion" that lead to it and don't want him to be truly punished for it. I'd even say the legal system was broken if it tried to be so rigid.
But the problem with laws is always that the moment you make them, they will be abused to the worst ways by the worst people. Suddenly "a man committing violence after being cheated on" is on equal legal footing as "he heard the word nigger, he couldn't stop himself."
Again if we're arguing that it's a situation where reasonable men can be expected to act unreasonable (why Gary why), then I agree it's justifiable but that's a legal hack because they don't want to simply argue it was justifiable. There may or may not be intent and I don't consider it a crime of passion. (he couldn't help himself in the moment)
Exactly. I didn't want to bother searching for examples where the defense has been used, but yeah that's about what I was thinking. I would gladly put such an animal down before executing a man who methodically planned out a murder. The latter case may or may not have mitigating circumstances. The former is an animal that shouldn't live among humans.
The difference with Gary is that the state was abdicating its duty by not quickly executing a child molester. The crime was objectively egregious enough to justify vigilante justice. The state has no duty to execute your wife because she cheated on you or to execute a stranger because he cut you off on the road.
This paints a hilarious mental image! Lol carry on ...
He was literally in cuffs getting off the plane to be taken to trial. Everyone has a right to trial to prove their guilt, even if its obvious and egregious of that guilt. Because as I said:
I don't care about protecting pedos or criminal. Heck I think druggies should be executed en masse. But I know the moment we cut down those protections fully from even the corrupted state they are in now, it'll be used to kill all of us long before it kills the evil.
Both Gary and the cucked man had a similar situation. Highly emotional and extreme situations, in which they reacted in ways we can all understand. That's why "crime of passion" laws exist, so that those people can still be tried and convicted of their clear lawbreaking but not punished so wildly that everyone's sense of justice is perverted.
Kill dozer enters the chat