"So, essentially, premeditation is immaterial as long as the crime was premeditated. Wonderfully helpful."
Isn't the point more that whether you premeditate a year in advance or an hour, premeditated murder is still premeditated? So the immaterial part is the duration of meditation, not the premeditation itself...?
Yeah, that is sort of their point -- but it's a bad point. In most of the cases on the same topic, there's a test that needs to be carried out. Basically it's whether the defendant carefully thought about the murder, and then carried it out coolly and steadily.
Also, these things should be considered:
1. What Δ did prior to the killing. Was he involved in activities indicating that he intended to commit the killing?
2. Facts about the prior relationship with the victim. i.e. Was there a motive for him to kill?
3. Facts about the actual killing that would indicate that Δ simply must have planned to kill them in this particular manner.
In this case, the trial court just kind of wings it without any real explanation of their definition of premeditation.
heh it takes me longer than that to decide what i want to eat for breakfast. i often wonder about judges. How can they possibly be objective? And if they are not, then how can they be trusted?
well, in most cases like this, judges will only make a decision if they're "absolutely certain" that a jury couldn't find any other way.
So if someone is indicted by a judge, they'll appeal, and the next judge will decide if a jury could decide anything else (i.e. if the judge has abused his discretion), and if he affirms the lower judge's opinion, then that's subject to appeal as well.
It's basically a system of checks and balances. Perfect? Probably not, but better than nothing.
Comments 6
Isn't the point more that whether you premeditate a year in advance or an hour, premeditated murder is still premeditated? So the immaterial part is the duration of meditation, not the premeditation itself...?
Reply
Also, these things should be considered:
1. What Δ did prior to the killing. Was he involved in activities indicating that he intended to commit the killing?
2. Facts about the prior relationship with the victim. i.e. Was there a motive for him to kill?
3. Facts about the actual killing that would indicate that Δ simply must have planned to kill them in this particular manner.
In this case, the trial court just kind of wings it without any real explanation of their definition of premeditation.
Reply
(what, meditating on a murder for 20 seconds while snapping and grabbing your gun don't constitute premeditation? Good to know... :P)
Reply
And about the clip, I see your point now. I guess I was reading it wrong.
Reply
Reply
So if someone is indicted by a judge, they'll appeal, and the next judge will decide if a jury could decide anything else (i.e. if the judge has abused his discretion), and if he affirms the lower judge's opinion, then that's subject to appeal as well.
It's basically a system of checks and balances. Perfect? Probably not, but better than nothing.
Reply
Leave a comment