Explanation
Societies over the centuries have varied over punishment for murder and to examine and analyze each murder in terms of their own circumstances (i.e. it was morally acceptable and/or merely expedient while committing the act). Thus, the Laws of Solon forming part of early Athenian law, provided that if an accused pleaded that he was justified in killing another, his case would be tried in a dedicated court called the Delphinion where, for example, it was considered justifiable homicide to kill an adulterer or burglar caught in the act.
In deciding when intentional killings should be treated as justifiable, governments are balancing different sets of interests. On the one hand, states usually allow for some form of practical responsibility of citizens to protect themselves from harm. In modern times, this reflects a social contract where allegiance is rewarded by the provision of policing and other civil defense systems, and the apparatus of redress for injuries suffered through a court system. In the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 3 states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person, and many nations' policy allows for some degree of leniency for "self-defense". In most cases where "self-defense" is substantiated through the legal system, reduced charges (i.e. felony reduced to misdemeanor), reduced prison sentence, or acquittal are usually ruled. Hence, in eighteenth century English law, it was considered a justifiable homicide if a husband killed a man "ravishing" his wife (Blackstone, Wm. at p391).
Read more about this topic: Justifiable Homicide
Famous quotes containing the word explanation:
“What causes adolescents to rebel is not the assertion of authority but the arbitrary use of power, with little explanation of the rules and no involvement in decision-making. . . . Involving the adolescent in decisions doesn’t mean that you are giving up your authority. It means acknowledging that the teenager is growing up and has the right to participate in decisions that affect his or her life.”
—Laurence Steinberg (20th century)
“Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing—suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)
“Young children constantly invent new explanations to account for complex processes. And since their inventions change from week to week, furnishing the “correct” explanation is not quite so important as conveying a willingness to discuss the subject. Become an “askable parent.””
—Ruth Formanek (20th century)