You walk into a courtroom. All you hear is sammy killed maddy. Immediately your thought is, Sammy is guilty of murder, she took maddys life. What if you then learn it was an act of self-defence or an act of war? Do you feel the same? Should Sammy still be conviced as guilty? This develops the question is killing ever justifiable?
Justice Wargrave, from Agatha Criste’s novel, “And then there were none” consistently portrays his twisted beliefs about justice and murder. His interesting concepts make me curious about whether there are cases of justified killing? To contradict Wargraves beliefs that killing someone is always an unjust act I have proposed two different perspectives in which outline that yes, in fact, killing can be justified. The first perspective is under the idea of self-defence, followed by the second perspective of killing under the commands of war.
We own our own lives. We protect the things we own. Therefore it makes sense we should be able to protect ourselves.
As humans, we all have the right to protect ourselves in danger. Taken from New Zealand’s Law Commission, it states in 31 SECTION 48 of the Crimes Act 1961 that, “The defence recognises that people have a right to defend themselves against violence or threats of violence, so long as the force used is no more than is reasonable for that purpose”
When our lives are at risk, we are not expected to just stand there and let someone hurt us.
Self-defence comes as a right to being human and alive. There are cases around the world in which to prevent harm happening to themselves a person has had to act. Often the defence is not intended to kill someone rather it is required for the attacker to stop or leave. If you felt threatened or in danger of someone hurting you, you would try stop them wouldn’t you?
In a particular case occurring in Miami, Greyston Garcia chased and stabbed a burglar which resulted in the death of the theif. This was an act of self-defence as previously the intruder had swung a bag of stolen car radios at Greyston, which although sounds peculiar, a medical examiner confirmed that it could’ve caused serious harm. This case is one of many examples in which killing another person is justified under self-defence to protect your own life and your belongings.
In life, there are situations where you can simply do nothing but fight back. These are cases in which killing can be justified because sometimes these cases result in the death of the other person, often not through intent and more of an unfortunate uncontrollable situation.
Self-defence, clearly being one reason why killing can be justifiable is still not the only case in which it can be. My next perspective outlines how war is a justifiable act of killing another person.
We praise our soldiers, we thank them for their bravery, we are grateful for their hard work. They killed so we could live. So would you really call them murderers?
War by definition is “a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country.” Killing another human in the act of war to fight for your nation can be considered a justifiable reason to kill another person.
Although war involves death and killing which can be considered murder, if you look at the purpose of war it is almost in order to gain justice for your country by fighting for what you believe in.
Unjustifiable murder is an act of hate, intent and passion. G.K. Chesterton, a respected journalist, explains how this is not the same for soldiers of war. He states, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”
Killing in war is regarding as a job with purpose. For soldiers what comes with this job is an understanding of why they are killing. The deaths that have to occur within war are what result in development and progress in the world. Lt Col Pete Kilner, a serving officer in the US Army who has done tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, states, “it’s very important that we understand why, and under what conditions it’s the morally right thing to do to kill another human being.” This shows that under the correct contexts of war, killing can be morally justified.
Soldiers do not kill because they want to or because they want to kill a specific person, they fight for what they stand for. Often it was not a choice for soldiers. Men were sent to war and if you refused you were frowned upon. Not only do soldiers take lives but they risk their own, with a high chance of being killed themselves. Being asked to fight and kill other man in the position of war does not mean these soldiers are guilty of murder.
Killing enemy soldiers in a declared war on the battlefield is legal by law. There are laws within war known as the “Geneva Conventions” which outline what actions are illegal in war. But taking someone’s life on the battlefield of a declared war is not considered the illegal act of murder. Therefore killing in during war is justifiable.
These are two perspectives in which taking a life is justifiable. Still, it makes me wonder whether anyone ever has the right to take a human life and who has the right to decide whether it is a justified reason.
Intent law – Still need opening sentence for my perspective
So how do we define between what is justifiable and what is not? Is the only dictator of this the law?
In my perspective, the law try’s to set boundaries and opinions around what is justifiable and how a person should be punished for what they have done. I do not believe the governmental laws and rules are always correct in dictating if killing someone is justifiable.
The two perspectives I have given outline two situations in which the law justifies killing but what I have learnt from life is that not all cases of death are exactly the same. So how can the law just decide whether it is justified or not?
I believe the justification comes only from your own opinion. The law does all it can to create justice and decide for us what is justifiable. But in the end, it is our own morals and the information that we have been given in which we decide if killing someone is ever justifiable.
There are situations in this world that are uncontrollable. Accidents happen. People die. Sometimes these things are just out of our control. So why should the law be allowed to prosecute a person for something they had no control over. Even if someone has killed another person by accident and it is justified, they are still written off with a title of man-slaughter, have to go through a tormenting court process and even have to commit to a punishment of community service at it’s least. All because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I believe the guilt upon these people if enough as it is without the law trying to dictate justice of the situation. For cases like these, the person has no intent to kill and often don’t deserve the punishment that can come with it.
To truly understand whether killing someone is justifiable I believe it involves looking deeper into context. The intent is what should shape the punishment rather than the action itself. The difference between murder and cases of manslaughter or self-defence is the intent. With every case, there is a new form of intent and each case must be treated with caution to uncover the intent and decide if the intent of the situation is justifiable.
You walk into a courtroom. All you hear is Maddy killed Sammy. After hearing these perspectives including my own. It is now clear to see that what we must ask ourselves before we make the assumption of whether killing is justifiable, what the context was? What the intent of the situation was? There is no yes or no to this question of “is killing ever justifiable” It changes for each case and even then it cannot always be answered because there are always people of different opinions and different perspectives. The law cannot always be left to make an estimated judgement of whether something is justifiable so we must make our own based of the context of intent.