15 Answers

  1. A” violation ” is a step over a certain prohibition.

    This prohibition can be either moral and ideological, like “Thou shalt not kill” in Christianity, or criminal law. It can also be your own, internal-if the moral, ideological and criminal law norms are not dogma for you.

    If you have nothing to go through – that is, there is no prohibition – then there is no offense.

    In the example you gave, the answer is simple: because in any modern society, the right to kill is the exclusive right of the state and is enshrined in law only for it. All others who commit it are, from the point of view of the law, criminals.

  2. Because the true criminal or not is determined by the court.

    But… The question is not entirely correct.

    In fact, the law provides for some cases when murder is permissible and not a crime.

    The first is necessary defense. If there is a threat to life, for example. Yes, although the law is complex, it is more or less good, but the practice of applying the law in courts is very bad. A judge, as you know, can legally be guided by internal beliefs when passing a sentence, and in the conditions of our system… Everyone knows a lot of unfair stories.

    The second – police officers, soldiers on guard-can also kill according to the law in certain cases and this will not be a crime.�

    That is, if they were killed, then there will be a check, but there will not even necessarily be an investigation and a court. A pre-investigation check decides whether or not to initiate a criminal case. If the actions were clearly within the law, then the case will not be considered. Theoretically…

    Here was an attack on the guard (military echelon) in Transbaikalia. The sentry shot and killed him. The check passed, the case against the sentry was not initiated, he acted correctly. A criminal case has been opened on the fact of an attack on the guard.

  3. Perhaps because there is such a thing as the presumption of innocence, which a person is not guilty of until it is proved by a court?
    Perhaps because killing is not humane and there is always a risk of error?
    Maybe because there are different crimes and it's too much to kill a person for it?

  4. For two reasons.

    1. The guilt of these criminals has not yet been proven. It is possible that an innocent person will be killed. Even the court, sometimes, makes mistakes (a vivid example is the case of Chikatilo, instead of which Alexander Kravchenko was shot by verdict).

    2. According to the law. Murder is the intentional infliction of death on another person, according to Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

  5. Something similar to self-organization of society existed in the United States right up to the 20th century – Lynch courts. In fact, lynching. Of course, in our time it has been completely abandoned.

    The most important thing is just a confession of guilt (in your opinion, the truth of the criminal). Murderers are often tough, and an innocent person can easily get hurt. Therefore, we need a normal court: a set of evidence, motivation. And there are also such important problems as self-incrimination, the pressure of the investigation (both moral and physical).

  6. I guess it's about self-defense.

    Answer:I have no idea why exactly in our country self-defense, if not a more serious crime than robbery, bodily harm, or home invasion, for example, is quite related to them, and why the courts and prosecutor's offices are so fiercely trying to put everyone who decided to defend themselves.

  7. Crime to crime-discord. A car accident, a man killed-that's one thing. Something went wrong in the process, and a person died. All this is sad, but the court will establish the truth and understand, but there is another example, when before your eyes there is an attempt of violence, robbery and a threat to the lives of your loved ones, will I call the police and wait for them to arrive? I wouldn't have left anyone alive, and I didn't give a damn about the courts. I have lived my life with these concepts, helping outsiders as much as possible. And the case of my friend-it was still the time of heavy motorcycles, we arrived late from hunting, he stayed overnight in the garage, in the middle of the night he hears a screech in the gate, in our time everything was made of boards, and the gate is the same. But the gun is handy, and when they opened the gate, he just said to them: get out, but Dean throws a tire iron at him, it goes through his forearm, and immediately gets a load of buckshot, the second one started to run, but in pursuit got in the back, really alive. The court considered this case and gave a friend 8 years, but he is a great welder, so he served normally. That's the story.

  8. Suppose two bulls got into a fight with a certain owner and one of them maimed, or even, God forbid, killed the other. What did the owner care who was right, who attacked, who defended? A loss has been made, that's the grief! And the owner will beat, or even hand over the winner's bull for meat. Similarly, the state treats its property and people in the same way. So what if someone spat in your face? You can maim or even kill your opponent, and he is a taxpayer, an employee, if he is not needed, the state itself disposes of him. And you are self-defense! Self-defense!

  9. The truth of a crime can only be determined by a court based on the totality of evidence. Punishment can also be imposed only by the court. There are, of course, cases when the criminal evades the answer, thanks to the venality of justice or the dexterity of a lawyer. But an ordinary person has no right to make a judgment. This is one of the functions of the state as an institution – the protection of its citizens. And also from an unfair accusation.

  10. The bottom line is that we are all human beings and rules apply to everyone.

    Why can't you kill criminals? this is a person's reflection on feelings or emotions,

    It is necessary to look at this point from the side without a sensory robot.

    (Sasha is 8 years old)

  11. Because this is lynching, and lynching by definition cannot be fair… It depends on the personal beliefs of the person who carries out lynching… Let me explain with an example: there is a certain Ahmed who was born and raised somewhere in the Emirates, and there his wife is executed for treason by “stoning” and this Ahmed decided to come to us and killed the girl for treason… For him, she is a true criminal and got what she deserved, but for our mentality, these crimes and punishments are comparable and equivalent??? Of course not… Or another example: one person killed another, how to determine the severity of the punishment? What if he was defending himself? What if the victim was your worst enemy, and the killer is a close relative? Or vice versa? And if the murder occurred unintentionally, but as a result of an unfortunate combination of circumstances (for example, he shot at the training ground, and a wild and fearless mushroom picker crawled out onto the target field without paying attention to the warning signs)?
    Therefore, a code of laws has been devised and judges have been chosen who, by definition, are independent and must judge according to the established laws of the state, and not as they feel like it, and who must determine the gravity of the crime and pass a verdict on the punishment commensurate with this crime: and not on emotions (in a state of passion), but carefully and thoughtfully…

  12. And who believes that killing true criminals without a trial is considered a crime? Revolutionaries under the tsarist rule are criminals, and after the overthrow of the tsarist regime of power, the law-abiding gentlemen-comrades declare that the tsar is a criminal… So who is the criminal revolutionaries, or the tsar?

  13. Because in a healthy state governed by the rule of law the government has established a monopoly on murder and the court decides who is considered a criminal and who is not after a thorough investigation of the event to avoid misunderstandings and errors in the legal framework according to the same laws for all,

  14. Killing true criminals without trial is considered a crime because the state protects its monopoly on violence, morality, and justice. By taking away the function of the court from the state, you are taking away power and authority from the state, and this is severely punished. Note that the murder of true criminals without trial is considered a crime by members of society, but if, God forbid, you want to kill true criminals, and you are smart enough to do it in a remote forest, then vigilant fellow citizens will not be able to find out about this event and the crime will not take place for the state. If justice is done publicly, then there are such problems as the totality of evidence, motivation, self-incrimination, pressure of the investigation, the adequacy of punishment, the adequacy of legislation. These are too complex things to be left to an angry mob or a convinced ubermansch.

  15. Because this is murder, which is not clear here.
    You can not be involved in what you did not create for yourself, the physics of the World is such, everything is included, excuses are not accepted.
    So do not look for excuses for yourself caressing your dope with the appearance of a righteous getoy sufferer.
    It is necessary to correct situations without limiting yourself in the possibilities, and the possibilities of this depend on your worldview, which you still have nothing to understand.

Leave a Reply