Regarding #3, laws can be cut and dried but the circumstances differ and what seems fair for one case may not seem to provide justice for another, and sometimes the sentence takes this into consideration. I think it's called equity, making things fair. If President Trump were killed, it would affect the entire country and deprive us of the leader we wanted for president. The crime is much more grave in that way than taking out someone that has no dependents, for example.
I appreciate that the number of people affected by an event is relevant to it's effects. I argue that it should not for Justice.
While context of an event is essential to passing judgement, that context should only include IMMEDIATE context, not "any feeling from any person who was not directly involved in the event."
The word "Justice" requires "fairness." How someone, who isn't an involved person, feels about an event has NO RELEVANCE to the event itself.
For example, if you get together a posse and string up some farmer who killed their neighbor, the reasons for that killing are essential. But if most of the posse were composed of brothers, father, and cousins of the dead guy, it would almost certainly be a tragedy of "Justice." You CAN'T BE FAIR if you include other people's feelings. It is impossible. That is what "Justice" means. It applies to Presidents (hated or loved) as much as paupers.
Let me ask you this: If it was Joe Biden who was "assassinated," would you consider the feelings of the country as important for the penalty?
Assassinating any president would have profound effects beyond the death of someone unknown. Equity really is an issue but I'm sure it comes into play into lawsuits more than in law. I'm not educated in law, but if it were cut and dried, we wouldn't need judges so much, or juries. There are always opinions weighing in.
Regarding #3, laws can be cut and dried but the circumstances differ and what seems fair for one case may not seem to provide justice for another, and sometimes the sentence takes this into consideration. I think it's called equity, making things fair. If President Trump were killed, it would affect the entire country and deprive us of the leader we wanted for president. The crime is much more grave in that way than taking out someone that has no dependents, for example.
I appreciate that the number of people affected by an event is relevant to it's effects. I argue that it should not for Justice.
While context of an event is essential to passing judgement, that context should only include IMMEDIATE context, not "any feeling from any person who was not directly involved in the event."
The word "Justice" requires "fairness." How someone, who isn't an involved person, feels about an event has NO RELEVANCE to the event itself.
For example, if you get together a posse and string up some farmer who killed their neighbor, the reasons for that killing are essential. But if most of the posse were composed of brothers, father, and cousins of the dead guy, it would almost certainly be a tragedy of "Justice." You CAN'T BE FAIR if you include other people's feelings. It is impossible. That is what "Justice" means. It applies to Presidents (hated or loved) as much as paupers.
Let me ask you this: If it was Joe Biden who was "assassinated," would you consider the feelings of the country as important for the penalty?
Assassinating any president would have profound effects beyond the death of someone unknown. Equity really is an issue but I'm sure it comes into play into lawsuits more than in law. I'm not educated in law, but if it were cut and dried, we wouldn't need judges so much, or juries. There are always opinions weighing in.