Why would a person kill themselves only to kill others? What were their reasons for targeting only the United States? Can their actions be morally justified? Because many of the terrorists killed themselves while committing the terroristic act; and others were killed or died later on, we will never be able to answer all of our questions. However, we can decide if there is a way to morally justify terroristic actions.The two
People at times have been confused with the difference between voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. But there is a substantial difference between the two that can help one to more thoroughly understand what the key difference is between the two. When it comes to voluntary manslaughter, the person commits the crime intentionally with reason, but involuntary manslaughter on the other hand is when someone is killed and the person accused of the killing did not intend to kill that person. For example; a doctor whom tried to do an illegal surgery or illegal practice to save or help someone and the patient ends up dying. The doctor had no intentions of a death occurring but a death ended up occurring, that would be involuntary manslaughter on the practitioner’s part.
He was tracked down and shot. Some say the police did the shooting, others say it was suicide. Either way Booth died, along with any explanations or answers. It was the worst move possible to have made for the south. They believe that they could change things, yet this effect of war killed off the south’s only sympathizer.
Thus, nobody should ever turn to the death penalty as an alternative to punish these infamous criminals. Besides, there is no evidence that the death penalty actually deters criminals. But what does the death penalty actually do? Does it truly help ease the pain of the victims? Many people tend to incline towards the death penalty because they tend to feel that it avenges their losses, but evidence shows that this is not ever true.
This to me is different than a planned and strategic murder of another person. I do not agree with the idea that men and women in uniform defending the freedoms of their country are ever to be considered murders when they are only following the orders they were given to support our freedoms. Terrorists are a different story all together. In war there are people who are out to hurt others for no good reason. They pick on the weak; women, children and elderly.
Factual causation is established by applying the ‘but for’ test. The test ask the question ‘but for the actions of the defendant, would the victim have been harmed?’ This was seen in the case of R v Pagett 1983 where the defendant held his pregnant girlfriend captive. When confronted by police, the defendant used the victim as a shield and fired shots at the police who returned fire, killing the victim. He was acquitted of murder but was found guilty of manslaughter, amongst other offences. The defendant appealed the manslaughter conviction on the grounds that he could not be liable for the victim’s death as he did not physically kill her.
In the case that they are not willing to collaborate with the prosecution, the defense is not permitted access to the requested evidence. In an example of discovery of evidence, Brady v. Maryland (1963), Brady and his acquaintance Boblit were prosecuted for murder. Though the prosecution had a written statement from Boblit, in which he admitted that he alone had killed the victim, they had convicted Brady for the crime as well. The Maryland Court of Appeals found that withholding evidence that is pertinent either to a person’s guilt or to their punishment violates due process
For example, 13 year old Jordan Brown of Pennsylvania was being tried on the murder of his father pregnant fiancé back in 2009. “Amnesty International has urged US authorities in Pennsylvania not to try Jordan in an adult court, as doing so could result in a violation of international law. If tried as an adult and convicted of first-degree murder, he would face life imprisonment without parole” ("AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL"). It is only right to sentence Jordan to life in prison because of his actions. He did not only kill his father’s pregnant fiancé, he also murdered their unborn child.
However, the murder of the old man is not the climax of “The Tell-Tale Heart;” it is when the police arrive at the scene of the murder (although they do not know it yet) that the unnamed protagonist reveals that he has murdered the old man and hidden his body beneath the floorboards (Poe 193). At this point the story ends and the mystery of motive unresolved. However, there are several themes dispersed throughout the story, such as themes of insanity, time, and death and destruction of others and of the self. These themes leave many scholars wondering how they fit together to understand as to why the narrator kills the old man. The theme of insanity is easily recognizable and plays a large role in “The Tell-Tale Heart” to why the protagonist murders the old man; However, in “‘The Tell-Tale Heart’ [readers only see] the results of madness, not its origins” (Symons 241).
The first being, the irreversible consequences of the death penalty. No jury can be one-hundred percent sure of their decision, and there is always a chance of innocent execution. One-hundred and forty-one innocent people have been exonerated after being accused of death and put on death row (Carter, 2012). Also, there are arguments that it is against American morals as it violates the clause in the eight amendment which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Though the sentence itself may not be cruel, it is difficult to find a method of execution that is considered humane.