Killing when is it right

Dadashri: What is the benefit in killing, then? When you kill a suffering man, you will lose your birthright to be born as a human again. It goes against the principles of humanity. How to take care of your dying loved one? Questioner: What should the extended family and those around, do when their loved one is about to die? Dadashri: You have to be extremely careful when Read More. Are religious rituals significant for dying person? Questioner: There are certain rituals people are made to practice in the last hour of their life.

Some Lamas are made to carry out certain activities in Questioner: Is it true that the spirits of one's ancestral fathers pitrus are summoned in the ritual of Shradh? Dadashri: Who can be called an ancestral First Known Use of murder Noun before the 12th century, in the meaning defined at sense 1 Verb 13th century, in the meaning defined at transitive sense 1.

Learn More About murder. Time Traveler for murder The first known use of murder was before the 12th century See more words from the same century. From the Editors at Merriam-Webster. A Drudge of Lexicographers Presents Phrases Related to murder double murder get away with murder murder weapon. Style: MLA. Kids Definition of murder Entry 1 of 2. Kids Definition of murder Entry 2 of 2. Other Words from murder murderer noun. Legal Definition of murder Entry 1 of 2. Legal Definition of murder Entry 2 of 2.

Get Word of the Day daily email! Test Your Vocabulary. These two last, however, are in strictness scarcely to be deemed properties of the pleasure or the pain itself; they are not, therefore, in strictness to be taken into the account of the value of that pleasure or that pain. They are in strictness to be deemed properties only of the act, or other event, by which such pleasure or pain has been produced; and accordingly are only to be taken into the account of the tendency of such act or such event.

To a number of persons, with reference to each of whom to the value of a pleasure or a pain is considered, it will be greater or less, according to seven circumstances: to wit, the six preceding ones; viz. Its fecundity. Its purity. And one other; to wit: 7. Its extent; that is, the number of persons to whom it extends; or in other words who are affected by it.

To take an exact account then of the general tendency of any act, by which the interests of a community are affected, proceed as follows. Begin with any one person of those whose interests seem most immediately to be affected by it: and take an account, 1. Of the value of each distinguishable pleasure which appears to be produced by it in the first instance.

Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it in the first instance. Of the value of each pleasure which appears to be produced by it after the first. This constitutes the fecundity of the first pleasure and the impurity of the first pain. Of the value of each pain which appears to be produced by it after the first. This constitutes the fecundity of the first pain, and the impurity of the first pleasure.

Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side, and those of all the pains on the other. The balance, if it be on the side of pleasure, will give the good tendency of the act upon the whole, with respect to the interests of that individual person; if on the side of pain, the bad tendency of it upon the whole.

Take an account of the number of persons whose interests appear to be concerned; and repeat the above process with respect to each. Sum up the numbers expressive of the degrees of good tendency, which the act has, with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole: do this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is good upon the whole: do this again with respect to each individual, in regard to whom the tendency of it is bad upon the whole.

Take the balance which if on the side of pleasure, will give the general good tendency of the act, with respect to the total number or community of individuals concerned; if on the side of pain, the general evil tendency, with respect to the same community. It is not to be expected that this process should be strictly pursued previously to every moral judgment, or to every legislative or judicial operation.

It may, however, be always kept in view: and as near as the process actually pursued on these occasions approaches to it, so near will such process approach to the character of an exact one.

The same process is alike applicable to pleasure and pain, in whatever shape they appear: and by whatever denomination they are distinguished: to pleasure, whether it be called good which is properly the cause or instrument of pleasure or profit which is distant pleasure, or the cause or instrument of, distant pleasure, or convenience, or advantage, benefit, emolument, happiness, and so forth: to pain, whether it be called evil, which corresponds to good or mischief, or inconvenience or disadvantage, or loss, or unhappiness, and so forth.

Nor is this a novel and unwarranted, any more than it is a useless theory. In all this there is nothing but what the practice of mankind, wheresoever they have a clear view of their own interest, is perfectly conformable to. An article of property, an estate in land, for instance, is valuable, on what account?

On account of the pleasures of all kinds which it enables a man to produce, and what comes to the same thing the pains of all kinds which it enables him to avert. But the value of such an article of property is universally understood to rise or fall according to the length or shortness of the time which a man has in it: the certainty or uncertainty of its coming into possession: and the nearness or remoteness of the time at which, if at all, it is to come into possession. As to the intensity of the pleasures which a man may derive from it, this is never thought of, because it depends upon the use which each particular person may come to make of it; which cannot be estimated till the particular pleasures he may come to derive from it, or the particular pains he may come to exclude by means of it, are brought to view.

For the same reason, neither does he think of the fecundity or purity of those pleasures. Thus much for pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness, in general. We come now to consider the several particular kinds of pain and pleasure.

According to the principle of utility, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness. But is that right? Should you always try to maximize happiness? Should you always do whatever is necessary to minimize unhappiness? Episode One opens our study of justice by considering the philosophy of utilitarianism. A good way to continue the discussion is to consider the principle of utility and to ask whether it always gets the right answer.

Harming the Innocent According to the principle of utility, we should always do whatever will produce the greatest amount of happiness and whatever is necessary to prevent the greatest amount of unhappiness.

But what if the only way to produce happiness, and to prevent unhappiness, is to harm or even kill innocent people? Telling the Truth The principle of utility tells us to do whatever is necessary to minimize pain and unhappiness, but pain and unhappiness have many sources.

There are times when telling people the truth would make them very unhappy. Should you lie to a person whenever lying is the only way to spare his or her feelings and prevent unhappiness? Living Your Life The principle of utility says that we should always maximize happiness. It does not matter whether we are deciding on the laws of our country as citizens and officials, or whether we are deciding what to do in our own private lives.

In every possible case, the principle of utility tells us to choose the course of action that will produce the greatest amount of happiness. Is that right? Next Lecture. Readings and Discussion Guides. The Queen v. Collins, Q. Jeremy Bentham, Principles of Morals and Legislation Chapter I. Of the Principle of Utility. Chapter IV. Lecture 1 — Discussion Guide Beginner. Welcome to the study of Justice! There are times when the only way to prevent harm to a large number of people is to harm a smaller number of people.

Considering that in this case use of firearms did not produce the death or wounding of any person and that the court could not under the law take these elements into account in imposing sentence, the Committee is of the view that the mandatory imposition of the death sentence under these circumstances violates Article 6, paragraph 2, of the Covenant.

The Committee acknowledges the difficult economic situation of the State party, but wishes to emphasize that the rights set forth in the Covenant constitute minimum standards which all States parties have agreed to observe.

Article 14, paragraph 3 c , states that all accused shall be entitled to be tried without delay, and this requirement applies equally to the right of review of conviction and sentence guaranteed by article 14, paragraph 5. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights , is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 6, paragraph 2, and 14, paragraph 3 c , of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Committee is of the view that Mr. Lubuto is entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3 a , of the Covenant to an appropriate and effective remedy, entailing a commutation of sentence. The State party is under an obligation to take appropriate measures to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.

Although the author did not invoke a violation of Article 6, the Committee considered that from his allegations and the facts, it appeared that he was a victim of a violation by Zambia of, inter alia, Article 6 ICCPR.

The Committee reads together Article 6 right to life and Article 14 fair trial. Therefore, states must comply with the right to a fair trail when imposing the death penalty. As the Human Rights Committee has stated in several cases, Article 14 requires that the accused have legal representation, adequate time and facilities to prepare the defence and communicate with his or her lawyer. In the following case, Mr. This case is worth mentioning because in its views the Human Rights Committee defined some of the requirements for the imposition of the death penalty.

Keywords: life - death penalty death penalty, most serious crimes - interference with correspondence - cruel, inhuman treatment or punishment- degrading treatment or punishment - humane treatment - respect for dignity- right to be brought promptly before a judge - trial within a reasonable time - right to defend oneself in person or through legal assistance.

Where a capital sentence may be pronounced on the accused, sufficient time must be granted to the accused and his counsel to prepare the trial defence. The determination of what constitutes adequate time requires an assessment of the individual circumstances of each case [? The Committee observes that in the absence of any State party justification, this finding would be made in similar circumstances in other cases.

In the present case, it is uncontested that Mr. McLawrence was unrepresented during his initial court appearances, although the State party maintains that he was informed of his right to legal assistance on those occasions. On the other hand, he did secure legal representation thereafter, and on his own admission was represented satisfactorily during the trial. Concerning the appeal, the Committee notes that the appeal form dated 30 November indicates that the author did not wish the Court of Appeal assign him legal aid, that he had the means of securing legal representation for himself and that he gave the names of the two lawyers who had represented him on trial.

The author did initially indicate the desire to be present during the hearing of the appeal. However, he was represented at the appeal hearing, and it is not clear from the material before the Committee whether the author continued to insist, in March , to be present during the hearing of the appeal.

In the circumstances of the case, the Committee is not in a position to make any finding on article 14, paragraph 3 d. In this case, since the final sentence of death was passed without due respect for the requirements of article 14, the Committee must hold that there has also been a violation of article 6 of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of articles 9, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 14, paragraph 3 c , and consequently of article 6, of the Covenant.

By reading Article 14 together with Article 6, the deficiencies in the proceedings which led to the death sentence were considered to also violate the right to life. The Human Rights Committee has stressed in several decisions that states parties have an imperative duty to rigorously observe all the guarantees for a fair trial set out in Article 14 of the Covenant in cases where the death sentence comes into play.

Therefore, individuals must have a fair hearing by an independent tribunal, the procedure must comply with the presumption of innocence and the right to review the case by a higher tribunal must be guaranteed. Furthermore, minimum guarantees for the defence, including adequate time to prepare the defence and access to legal aid, must be assured. Jamaica , Communication No. In the case of Kennedy v.

Trinidad and Tobago below, the applicant was sentenced to death as a result of a murder conviction in Trinidad and Tobago. The Human Rights Committee was called upon to review the mandatory character of the death penalty inTrinidad and Tobago. Kennedy v. Trinidad and Tobago.

The State party has not addressed this claim. The Committee notes that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty under the laws of Trinidad and Tobago is based solely on the particular category of crime of which the accused person is found guilty.

Once that category has been found to apply, no room is left to consider the personal circumstances of the accused or the particular circumstances of the offence.

In the case of Trinidad and Tobago, the Committee notes that the death penalty is mandatory for murder, and that it may be and in fact must be imposed in situations where a person commits a felony involving personal violence and where this violence results even inadvertently in the death of the victim.

The Committee considers that this system of mandatory capital punishment would deprive the author of his right to life, without considering whether, in the particular circumstances of the case, this exceptional form of punishment is compatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The Committee accordingly is of the opinion that there has been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Kennedy was at no stage heard in relation to his request for a pardon nor informed about the status of deliberations on this request, his right under Article 6, paragraph 4, of the Covenant, was violated.

In other words, counsel contends that the exercise of the right to seek pardon or commutation of sentence should be governed by the procedural guarantees of Article 14 see paragraph 3. The Committee observes, however, that the wording of Article 6, paragraph 4, does not prescribe a particular procedure for the modalities of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

Accordingly, States parties retain discretion for spelling out the modalities of the exercise of the rights under Article 6, paragraph 4. It is not apparent that the procedure in place in Trinidad and Tobago and the modalities spelled out in Sections 87 to 89 of the Constitution are such as to effectively negate the right enshrined in Article 6, paragraph 4. In the circumstances, the Committee finds no violation of this provision.

The Human Rights Committee had already taken the view that a mandatory death sentence for a broadly defined crime murder constitutes arbitrary deprivation of life in violation of Article 6 1 in Thompson Eversley v.

Vincent and the Grenadines Communication No. In the following case, also against Trinidad and Tobago, the thirty-two applicants had been sentenced to death by hanging as a result of convictions for murder. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Keywords: Life - death penalty, mandatory - trial within a reasonable time - fair trial - judicial protection - detention conditions - amnesty, pardon or commutation of sentence - provisional measures, non-compliance with.

In light of the general spirit evident in Article 4 of the American Convention , considered in its entirety, the Court has found that:. First, the imposition or application of this sanction is subject to certain procedural requirements whose compliance must be strictly observed and reviewed.

Second, the application of the death penalty must be limited to the most serious common crimes not related to political offenses. Finally, certain considerations involving the person of the defendant, which may bar the imposition or application of the death penalty, must be taken into account. This approach allows for a graduated assessment of the gravity of the offence, so that it will bear an appropriate relation to the graduated levels of gravity of the applicable punishment.

The Court finds that the Offences Against the Person Act of of Trinidad and Tobago automatically and generically mandates the application of the death penalty for murder and disregards the fact that murder may have varying degrees of seriousness. Consequently, this Act prevents the judge from considering the basic circumstances in establishing the degree of culpability and individualising the sentence since it compels the indiscriminate imposition of the same punishment for conduct that can be vastly different.

In light of Article 4 of the American Convention, this is exceptionally grave, as it puts at risk the most cherished possession, namely, human life, and is arbitrary according to the terms of Article 4 1 of the Convention. The Court finds that the Offences Against the Person Act has two principal aspects: a in the determination of criminal responsibility, it only authorizes the competent judicial authority to find a person guilty of murder solely based on the categorization of the crime, without taking into account the personal conditions of the defendant or the individual circumstances of the crime; and b in the determination of punishment, it mechanically and generically imposes the death penalty for all persons found guilty of murder and prevents the modification of the punishment through a process of judicial review.

In countries where the death penalty still exists, one of the ways in which the deprivation of life can be arbitrary under Article 4 1 of the Convention is when it is used, as is the case in Trinidad and Tobago due to the Offences Against the Person Act, to punish crimes that do not exhibit characteristics of utmost seriousness, in other words, when the application of this punishment is contrary to the provisions of Article 4 2 of the American Convention. In light of these facts, the Court concludes that because the Offences Against the Person Act submits all persons charged with murder to a judicial process in which the individual circumstances of the accused and the crime are not considered, the aforementioned Act violates the prohibition against the arbitrary deprivation of life, in contravention of Article 4 1 and 4 2 of the Convention.

The Court found that the mandatory death sentence imposed on all those convicted of murder in Trinidad and Tobago was arbitrary and violated their right to life under the American Convention on Human Rights. The following case refers to the execution of twenty-four soldiers on 19 October inFreetown, Sierra Leone.

The soldiers had been tried and sentenced to death by a court martial for their alleged roles in the coup that overthrew the elected government of President Tijan Kabah. The case was submitted by an NGO which alleged that the court martial which tried and convicted the victims did not allow for appeal of the death sentence to a higher tribunal.

It was argued that the public execution of the twenty-four soldiers after they had been denied the right of appeal to a higher tribunal amounted inter alia to an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life contrary to Article 4 of the African Charter. African Commission Forum of Conscience v. Sierra Leone. The Complainant alleges that the 24 soldiers were tried and sentenced to death by a Court Martial for their alleged roles in the coup that overthrew the elected Government of President Tijan Kabah.

The Complainant contends that the public execution of the 24 soldiers on 19th October after being denied right of appeal to a higher tribunal also amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life contrary to Article 4 of the African Charter.

The Commission notes that the trial in issue was that of a purely military nature, i. The execution of the 24 soldiers without the right of appeal is therefore a violation of Article 7 1 a of the Charter.

This is more serious given the fact that the said violation is irreversible. Every human being shall be entitled to respect for his life? No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right. The right to life is the fulcrum of all other rights. It is the fountain through which other rights flow, and any violation of this right without due process amounts to arbitrary deprivation of life.

Having found above that the trial of the 24 soldiers constituted a breach of due process of law as guaranteed under Article 7 1 a of the Charter, the Commission consequently finds their execution an arbitrary deprivation of their rights to life provided for in Article 4 of the Charter.

Although this process cannot bring the victims back to life, it does not exonerate the government of Sierra Leone from its obligations under the Charter. The Commission notes the failure of the competent authorities of the Republic ofSierra Leone to respond to its request for additional information and arguments on the admissibility and merits of the case. However, before the Commission, the African Charter is the yardstick for determining violations.