That should be the way. The 2 criminal may have similiar cases
but not similiar circumstances. U're saying they should all be
viewed the same regardless of their motivation?
B4 UK abolished the death sentence altogether, they decided that
for capital crimes like murder, it was mandatory to consider the
motivation.
For eg. A woman who had been subject to many years of abuse from
her cheating, drunkard of a husband, who finally snaps and kills
him in a moment of rage. During the killing she is aware that she
is committing a crime. But she does so because she can't take it
anymore, and she feels she has no option left. The law was changed
such that it was considered unethical to sentence this woman to
death just because she committed murder.
And for goodness sake, do not start the, "she should die because
she could have seek help from social group" argument. That is
irrelevant, because she was suffering and that suffering was the
motivation behind the killing.
U know that for sure? That the Triads didn't tell him "If u do
not do this for us we WILL kill your brother" or something?
U know for sure, 100% sure, that he had other ways of helping his
sibling? If u don't how can u say it is justified that he dies? He
didn't commit a crime out of personal greed. That counts for a lot
as far as I can see.
Seriously from all of your thinking here, u must be the kind of
people who watch Robin Hood movies and think "he should be
excecuted for being a serial robber and career criminal."
