WI there was an "executioner's exception"?

Why would crime be reduced?

Most homicides are spur of the moment or based on some sort of preexisting emotional issue (cheating spouse/S.O, debt, perceived slight). A full 1/3 of the women who are murdered are killed by current/former partners. Only one murder in 7 is actually attributable to "criminal acts" outside of the killing itself, and that figure includes felony DUI.

What you WOULD get is a remarkable tit-for-tat involving close circles of friends or family members since that is the overwhelming source of murderers and murder victims.

Maybe, maybe not. A lot of what is being discussed is how things were in Appalachia in living memory. Feuds, conflicts etc. The key to resolving those was instilling a trust in local authorities, a difficult task in party controlled counties. Regardless, certain proprieties were observed, unlike the narco gangs today. The idea of a circle of tit for tat murders is dependent upon the circumstances of the killing, and whether the family involved (the victims) felt it was justified or not.
 
What you WOULD get is a remarkable tit-for-tat involving close circles of friends or family members since that is the overwhelming source of murderers and murder victims

see the Hatfield and McCoy feud. Not the only one, just the most (in)famous
 
see the Hatfield and McCoy feud. Not the only one, just the most (in)famous[/QUOTE

Which was caused by the ACW, and its after affects. Same as most feuds in that area. Take the ill will engendered by the war out, and it becomes substantially less likely. And again, in that instance it was an egregious murder, not a run of the mill crime of passion.
 
Notwithstanding the moral and social problems caused by such a law, the law itself would have to be drafted for a very limited scope of application if one want the law to be enforceable, because (too) many people got killed by others in non-murder circumstances. Can the relatives of the victim in a DUI case killed the drunk driver? The drunk driver, while certainly acting negligently, has not intent to kill. What about a heated fight between hot-blooded teens that result in one of them died due to thin skull? If such law create defence to all sort of killings arising from the death of one people caused by another person and without taking intention into accounts, it would be "a remarkable tit-for-tat", to quote @CalBear .
 
Why would crime be reduced?

Most homicides are spur of the moment or based on some sort of preexisting emotional issue (cheating spouse/S.O, debt, perceived slight). A full 1/3 of the women who are murdered are killed by current/former partners. Only one murder in 7 is actually attributable to "criminal acts" outside of the killing itself, and that figure includes felony DUI.

What you WOULD get is a remarkable tit-for-tat involving close circles of friends or family members since that is the overwhelming source of murderers and murder victims.
Maybe I misunderstood, I didn't think that this was limited to murders, but any situation where someone breaking the law, kills someone as a consequence of their criminal misbehavior, and then is 'fair game', so to speak.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Maybe I misunderstood, I didn't think that this was limited to murders, but any situation where someone breaking the law, kills someone as a consequence of their criminal misbehavior, and then is 'fair game', so to speak.
As i noted, in that case you wind up with a lot of spouses/ex spouses targeted with their killer targeted by other family members. The overwhelming number of homicides are spur of the moment or are the classic "crime of passion", followed by disagreements over money.
 
Top