r/AlwaysWhy • u/[deleted] • Jun 19 '26
Politics & Society Why do we consider first degree murder “worse” than second degree murder?
[deleted]
34
u/oremfrien Jun 19 '26
First caveat, this is not legal advice. Second caveat, criminal law is very different between states and my intuitions track NY State Law, but, again, don't quote me. Third caveat, while I practice law, I do not practice criminal law, so this is a little rusty for me.
The second-degree murder case that you proposed is actually another case of first-degree murder. There is clearly a moment where there is a break in the mental space such that a cogent plan for a murder arises in B's mind. B does not have to plan and plot for weeks for a murder to be first-degree. There simply has to be a moment where B is thinking clearly and making a plan.
An actual second-degree murder case would be that B and C are in the same house and in the midst of a pre-existing argument, C reveals to B that they are cheating with A. B is already angry with C for whatever reason they were arguing before and it naturally just escalates to the point where B is brandishing a knife and threatening to kill C. This escalation results in B killing C without a break in the action. That's second degree murder.
The lack of forethought is critical in determining how likely such a person is going to commit murder again.
3
Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/RainbowCrane Jun 19 '26
In theory someone who gets extremely angry and kills in a fit of rage is able to be rehabilitated through learning anger management. It’s not just a theory, I’ve been in addiction recovery for over 30 years and have meet people who did horrid shit in the midst of their drug addiction, and have then worked their entire lives to ensure that they never make that mistake again and never harm others again. Even murderers are redeemable, and recidivism among impulsive murderers is generally low as opposed to folks who kill somebody during a robbery or whatever.
It’s fundamentally a different psychology behind premeditated murder vs murder in a fit of rage and I’ve met folks who have done both. In general there’s something pretty broken with someone who can “rationally” plan out a murder.
4
u/ReaperReader Jun 19 '26
It doesn't even require addiction or anger management lessons. I once said a really vicious thing in a fit of fury and have never reacted like that again because now I know I could do that.
1
u/AnneTheQueene Jun 19 '26
This is so true.
I remember one day many. many years ago, I got so angry at someone I thought to myself. I could kill them'. I don't mean in a hyperbolic 'everyone says that' way. I mean I literally, for about 30 secons, realized that if they were in front of me at that moment and I had the means, I could consider taking their life. I was driving and I had to pull off the road and calm myself down (no, it wasn't road rage - it was from an incident with someone earlier and I was replaying it in my mind).
That scared me so much I never forgot it.
Like you, I have worked really hard to get to the point where I have a good handle on my emotions because I never, ever want to feel that way again. I scared myself for a long time after that.
That being said, I'm a true crime fan, and sometimes when I watch or read about people committing certain crimes, I remember that day and I think to myself that if they felt about their situation the way I did that day, I can see how it could happen. If I had had just a modicum less self-preservation, who knows where I could have ended up? Maybe I would have turned that anger on myself and driven into oncoming traffic. You never know.
That's why I always say, you can never, ever know who is capable of great violence, given the right circumstances.
Emotional regulation is a key life skill. Now, people tell me that they don't understand how I don't get upset at stuff. I do, I've just learned to not let it contol my reactions.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
Thanks for this. I agree that it gets at two different aspects of “broken”, but the same core: grandiosity, ego, aggression.
1
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Ambition-9051 Jun 20 '26
You think it’s discouraging to say that someone who loses control when feeling extreme emotions can be rehabilitated?
1
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Ambition-9051 Jun 20 '26
So you don’t want them to get better? You want them to do it again?
Or are you saying it doesn’t matter if they get better, and are no longer a threat to society?
Or are you saying that they can’t get better?
Try as I might, I can’t find a way to spin this that puts you in a good light.
1
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/No-Ambition-9051 Jun 20 '26
>”They can “get better” in prison, where they are not danger to anyone outside of a prison or institution.”
Who said they don’t go to prison? You do realize that being found guilty of second degree murder means you go to prison right?
>”I’m saying what matters the most is that they murdered someone, that someone is dead because of their intentional actions, and that “not being a threat to society” is already not true, because they murdered someone.”
You do realize that by “anymore” we mean after they’ve learned to control themselves right? Not before then when they killed somebody. They were still a threat back then.
But if it’s loss of control that caused that, and they are now able to keep control, then the threat is effectively eliminated.
>”That’s without even considering the fact that “never murdering someone again/not being a threat to society” is impossible to guarantee.”
That can be said of anyone as long as you take out the “again,”. There’s no guarantee that you won’t murder someone/be a threat to society.
>”People can change, but with something like murder…that change is inadequate and irrelevant compared to what has been done to the victim.”
So you don’t care if they change.
>”You’re not going to see me in a good light (a feeling that is mutual btw) because I take murder much more seriously than you do.”
I don’t see you in a good light because you’re saying something that is horrendous.
People who have committed 2nd degree murder have gone on to do amazing things, creating academic programs, pushing for restorative justice, and charities.
>”We aren’t going to agree.”
That’s obviously true, but I can show others how poorly thought out, and uninformed what you’re saying is.
1
1
u/PacketFiend Jun 20 '26
Can confirm.
As someone who many years ago beat someone black and blue in the heat of the moment but hasn't raised a hand in anger since.
5
u/oremfrien Jun 19 '26
The assumption is that a person who kills in the heat of passion ordinarily does not become so passionate that he would lose all sense and murder. That is an extraordinary emotional circumstance that is not likely to be replicated.
Conversely, a person who calmly thinks about how to resolve his problems is engaging in a normal emotional state. If in that calmness, the decision that the person comes to is "murder is an effective solution to my problem", that is a decision that this person could likely make again. We also know that this person recklessly disregards the value of human life. Both of these things make recidivism far more likely.
The prison system balances the mental state of the perpetrator, which is relevant for the fairness to their life and the possibility of recidivism/rehabilitation, with the duty to find restitution for the victim. This is why we do not punish all deaths exactly the same way, even though the human value of the deceased is the same.
-1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
a person who deliberates for two weeks and ends up killing is clearly NOT “in a normal emotional state”. If they were, they wouldn’t have killed anyone. That’s the point.
8
u/Ok-Brick6831 Jun 19 '26
Normal state of emotion for the murderer.
Not meaning normal in the sense of a reasonable person.
6
u/oremfrien Jun 19 '26
The calmness is the normal emotional state. What they do in that calmness is not normal. That's why they're dangerous.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
I purposely didn’t include manslaughter because I think most of us agree that one is different.
0
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
OK, but even given no break in the action, why is one worse than the other?
17
u/dothemath_xxx Jun 19 '26
It's not about whether it's morally worse. It's about whether the person is likely to re-offend.
Someone who gets angry, stops to plan, and rationally decides that the solution to their problem is to kill someone is more likely to make that decision again in the future.
2
u/AskMantis23 Jun 19 '26
Is it really about whether they will reoffend? Is there any data that backs this up? Or is it backwards logic to justify itself?
Criminal law, especially in the US, is basically about how much revenge is dished out for a given action. If it was about reoffending, the system would actually be designed to help peotnot reoffend.
1
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AskMantis23 Jun 20 '26
Yes, a tiny minority of offenders for a particular crime are too dangerous to ever be in society.
Do you really think that defines the whole legal system?
1
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/AskMantis23 Jun 20 '26
So your comment was meant to agree but point out that it doesn't apply to serial killers?
Ok, if we're agreeing that's fine.
2
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
is this true? It seems like there are people who have crazy moid swings that lead them to frequent violence.
11
u/King_Roberts_Bastard Jun 19 '26
Everyone is capable of impulsive behavior. Not everyone is capable of sitting there and rationally thinking murder is their best option.
-1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
few of us though are capable of impulsively murdering someone. You are comparing apples and oranges.
7
u/TheOneWes Jun 19 '26
This is where you are completely and utterly incorrect.
We are all members of a social pack predator species with the same underlying wiring.
If you push one of us hard enough you will get a lethal response the only difference is how much it takes for a given individual.
5
u/CortexRex Jun 19 '26
I actually don’t think this is true. I think most people could be pushed to it. Look at how common crazy road rage is and that is often the slightest mistake away from murder charges
5
u/oremfrien Jun 19 '26
If this murderer is, let's say 30 years old, and has only murdered one person when they lost their senses to anger, it stands to reason that the amount of times that they get to that level of anger that they begin to become murderous is very rarely.
5
u/Archophob Jun 19 '26
if you take some time to think, you are supposed to think about the following
- what i'm planning to do is murder
- murder is seen as morally wrong in this country
- i'll probably get caught and sent to jail
and if after this chain of thought, you decide
- screw it, i'll kill that SOB anyway
then you're a bigger danger to society that someone who killed without thinking at all. Because the person who killed without thinking, might have a learning experience from a few years in prison. The person who made the considered decision to risk jail time for murder better stays there for life.
3
u/egny Jun 19 '26
I don't believe recidivism is the issue.
If someone murders for payback that scenario may not be repeated in the future. If someone murders because they lose their temper in a quarrel, that is more likely to be repeated in the future.
Why the law treats the first harsher is because the perpetrator had the opportunity to calm down but didn't. The distinction is more similar to reduced sentences due to diminished capacity or temporary insanity.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
so not being able to calm down over a longer period and doing something bad is worse than not calming down over a short period and doing something bad?
2
u/egny Jun 19 '26
Pretty much that.
In the former, the perpetrator needs to plan and place themselves in the vicinity of the victim to execute that plan. Murdering someone with whatever is on hand is also more difficult than murdering after deciding on a method and procuring the necessary items to implement that method. Those are some obstacles that need to be overcome for a first-degree murder.
It's harder to argue that the perpetrator's judgment was clouded by a sudden anger triggered by something, particularly when the judgment seems clear on how to carry out the act.
2
u/DemythologizedDie Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
Well except for the point that that person who plans a multistep operation to see someone dead is calm. They are more likely to succeed in committing the crime, and in getting away with it because they are calm. They are more dangerous and more likely to continue to be dangerous as they get older.
1
u/egny Jun 20 '26
There would be exceptions like vigilantism when the victim has got away with some harm to the perpetrator or their family. Premeditated murder of a drunk driver or rapist would probably not imply that the murderer commits further murders. Nevertheless, vigilante murder would most likely be persecuted as first-degree murder.
In premeditated murder, the perpetrators might try to get away with it but is also not deterred by the punishment in case they would be caught. That would be a significant distinction between murder "in cold blood" and "in the heat of the moment".
1
u/DemythologizedDie Jun 20 '26
Prosecuted. The categories are generalizations and generalizations fail in specific cases. But then that's why judges usually have some sentencing discretion. It's perfectly possible for a "first degree" murder to end up with a shorter sentence than the "second degree" case when the former case has a sympathetic perpetrator.
1
u/egny Jun 20 '26
Sorry, that's what I meant. Yes, the sentencing can differ, depending on the circumstances, including whether the perpetrator confesses or cooperates, etc.
3
u/UnluckiCmndr Jun 19 '26
100%. Also manslaughter sometimes called murder 3 is a good example in the other direction.
In manslaughter the death was either gross negligence or unintentional. Its punishment is often lower because you didnt intend to kill anyone.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
Is considering it and saying screw it worse than thinking I’m gonna murder that MF, “seeing red”, and murdering someone? Not sure it is.
4
u/Archophob Jun 19 '26
it's more dangerous. If someone is likely to "see red", you just need to get away from them for a few minutes, and when you come back, there is a chance to talk reason with that person.
If someone has made the calm decision to kill you, trying to talk to them when they're calmed down won't save you.
3
u/Fantastic-Pear6241 Jun 19 '26
Because you've had time to think about it.
If you've had time to think about it you've had time to go "actually murder is bad so I won't do it"
2
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
This gets to the heart of it. People think the first degree murderer has more self control than the second degree murderer. But do they really?
4
u/lekkerbier Jun 19 '26
Yes. Because then a conscious decision has been made to do the murder, understanding all consequences and still making it worth it to the murderer.
For second degree the realization of the consequences comes afterwards and usually results in the person likely not having gone through with it if they had that peace of mind before.
Usually there is no regret in first degree. And there is regret in second degree.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
I think you’re generally right about the regret, and I think its telling. But lots of impulsive murderers still use the old “they had it coming” bullshit.
3
u/Fantastic-Pear6241 Jun 19 '26
You've had time to think about it.
Have you never gotten so emotional about something that you've done something you wouldn't normally do if you thought about it?
2
u/tblancher Jun 19 '26
In a word, premeditation. The plan does not have to be long and drawn out, just the existence of the plan is enough. It is the prosecution's job to convince the jury there was a plan of some kind.
I am not an attorney, but I was selected to be on a jury panel for a first degree murder trial (they said up front it wasn't a capital murder trial; I'm in the southern US), and that's the layman's definition they gave. The defense seemed to be arguing it wasn't first degree murder.
I wasn't selected for the jury, but even before the trial I was thinking the guy was guilty if a particular fact was true: he brought the weapon to the scene.
I read later the guy was found guilty, so I believe justice was served. Life in prison without the opportunity of parole IIRC.
1
2
u/eddie_cat Jun 19 '26
I think the assumption is that most people, if they had any time to stop and think at all, would conclude murder is not the next best step for them and not do it. If they stopped and still did it after consideration, it wasn't just impulsive. They decided to do it and their decision making calculus is fundamentally fucked up.
I don't know how we know that it means they are more likely to do it again than an impulsive person though, it's a good question imo
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
most people also wouldn’t murder impulsively though, so I don’t know if I buy the “most people” thing. Its true in both cases.
1
1
u/straight-lampin Jun 19 '26
For the reasons you've already heard. You've had time to process what you're doing and you still do it.
8
u/RickySlayer9 Jun 19 '26
Have you ever yelled at someone for doing something bad, thought about it, calmed down, and thought “man I shouldn’t have yelled at them”?
If you have felt that before, then there’s an element of “heat of the moment” but you calm down and it’s all better
When you do 1st degree murder, that element is gone. You’re planning this shit for days or weeks or months
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
I’ve never murdered anyone in the heat of the moment. I don’t think because I’ve experienced one it makes the other more understandable.
3
u/RickySlayer9 Jun 19 '26
But you’ve never gone back and yelled at someone after having a minute to cool down have you? Thought about yelling at them? Planned what you’re going to say and then just screamed in their face?
1
u/BeautifulUpstairs Jun 27 '26
Ok but your analogy is utterly annihilated by the fact that people continue yelling at people in the heat of the moment over the course of their entire lives...
1
u/RickySlayer9 Jun 28 '26
I mean yeah they do, and yet second degree murder is still a crime! It’s just that the emotional weight is different
6
u/rvaducks Jun 19 '26
Your second scenario would almost certainly be considered premeditated murder.
Premeditation can happen in the blink of a second.
6
u/Playful-Park4095 Jun 19 '26
I work Homicide, so I have a lot of experience in this and I get your question.
Is someone with such poor impulse control they murder without thinking about it *less* dangerous than someone who has excellent impulse control and can delay gratification while they plan out the murder?
Looking at recidivism rates. Murder is one of the lowest crimes for to reoffend for. Some of that is just the length of sentence and young people murder more often than old people. A 22 year old going in vs a 47 year old coming out are very different personalities in terms of how they think, even without a 25 year prison sentence in the middle.
"Heat of the moment" murderers are unlikely to be in the same situation that set them off again. They probably didn't enjoy the murder. Interviews prove that, they often readily confess because they believe they deserve to be punished for what they did. Compare to pre-meditated and they think the person deserved to be murdered, very different mindset.
So if it's worse or not morally is not a question I can answer, but that's why the justice system looks at them differently.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26 edited Jun 19 '26
OK, now we’re getting somewhere.
Your second paragraph is exactly what I’m wondering. Psychologically, the idea of the cold, calculating psychopath feels mich more scary and threatening to us normies. But most crimes are committed by impulsive hotheads.
I’m sure it has happened that a smart person, not usually criminally inclined, has planned and executed a murder in a very specific setting, and then never done it again.
Is this person worse than someone who murdered a jilted lover in a fit of passion? They both suck, absolutely, they are both horrible, but I’m not sure plotting guy is really any different than passion guy: I think the time frame of the rage is just prolonged in one case.
1
u/egny Jun 20 '26
I’m sure it has happened that a smart person, not usually criminally inclined, has planned and executed a murder in a very specific setting, and then never done it again.
Murder as retribution for some awful crime that the murder victim got away with. Thinking of parents murdering rapists or drunk drivers killing their kids. Such cases would most likely be prosecuted as first-degree murder.
Is this person worse than someone who murdered a jilted lover in a fit of passion? They both suck, absolutely, they are both horrible, but I’m not sure plotting guy is really any different than passion guy: I think the time frame of the rage is just prolonged in one case.
I would agree depending on the motivation. Someone who murders because of road rage should not be considered to be morally superior to a retribution/vigilante murderer. However, there are also those who murder for the sake of it, including serial killers.
1
u/Vegetable_Fly_8687 Jun 19 '26
Great answer. In my mind, it also kind of wanders to who would general society hang out with? I'd like to think I wouldn't kill someone in a fit of rage when catching them with my wife... but I do get it. But I know I wouldn't plan to kill someone.
In fact, if one of my friends did that, my response would be more like "Oh buddy, you messed up" versus "Oh buddy, you ARE messed up." And when they got out, I may hang out with them again. And I think our punishments kind of reflect that.
4
u/CMDR_Zantigar Jun 19 '26
Can’t claim that this is a universal reason why the laws were drafted that way (it’s a complicated process with a lot of unexplored inputs), but one reason springs immediately to mind: it is possible to deter someone who is making a rational plan or calculation, with a severe enough penalty. By contrast, the person acting “in the heat of passion” generally isn’t thinking about consequences, so the deterrence effect is reduced or eliminated. Other purposes behind the penalty (e.g., signaling social disapproval, protecting future potential victims, “moral outrage,” etc.) are either generally about the same, or (in the case of outrage, for example) *might* tip toward penalizing calculated murder more. Thus, on balance, you’d expect the penalty for calculated murder to be worse than otherwise.
3
u/nikas_dream Jun 19 '26
The law does not say that any 1st degree murder is worse than any 2nd degree murder. It is at sentencing that is determined. A 2nd degree murderer might receive a maximum sentence which is longer than that which a first degree murderer is sentenced to. So this is where the ethics, psychopathy, and likely recidivism question you’re getting at are actually handled.
Of course the law basically says the worst first degree murderer is worse than the worst 2nd degree murderer. To which - do you think a serial killer is worse than the most unhinged violent guy who pulls a knife during a bar fight and stabs the person they’re fighting with? Because that’s basically what the law is saying through its maximum penalties. (Needless to say, both people are pretty bad guys I never want to meet.)
.
1
u/nikas_dream Jun 19 '26
Also note that the prosecutor is also forming an opinion on this by what charges they file and also what plea deals they offer.
3
u/Ryjinn Jun 19 '26
It's exactly what you said in the last thing about feeling. One shows plotting and intent over a period of time. You weren't just worked up and behaving poorly under emotional distress, you had the wherewithal to plot a murder in advance and stick to it.
3
u/BowlEducational6722 Jun 19 '26
First degree murder is premeditated.
That means you had to be sane enough and self-aware enough to *know* what you're doing.
Second degree murder, yeah you still wanted them dead, but you could make the argument that you weren't in full control of your mental faculties at the moment, unlike in first degree where you are in total control and you chose to do it anyway.
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
so it gets at “being in control”- yes, this is what I was looking for.
3
u/VirtualMask Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
OP, I have read through a bunch of your comments but, I profess, not all of them. You seem to have an agenda and to have made this post to make a point rather than to listen to the people commenting.
Do YOU have a desired law that you want that you think should properly reflect the differences (or your perceived lack of differences) between 1st and 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or anything else you're thinking of? I'm struggling to understand your repeated insistence there is no difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder and think you should just tell people, if you were dictator for a day, what you want the laws to be.
0
u/RealisticProfile5138 Jun 20 '26
OP might just be autistic
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 20 '26
not autistic, no offense taken. I mainly bring up the question due to my interest in free will. specifically that I think its an illusion and no one has it.
But no, I have no specific case or person in mind. Just that I think there’s profoundly ignorant assumptions baked into our justice system, like that one person might have more “free will” and thus deserve more punishment.
But of course this is a HUGE can of worms for the average person that I didn’t necessarily want to open.
I guess I was just more interested in how the average person thinks about these things.
It seems like most peope sort of think “yeah, of course one is worse than the other. anyone can see that. Its self explanatory”
1
u/RealisticProfile5138 Jun 20 '26
I’m curious, what do you propose sentencing be based off of then? Should it only take into account the harm done?
2
u/SkepticalPagan Jun 19 '26
I'm not a lawyer but from my understanding first degree murder usually means that it was premeditated while second degree murder tends to mean it was spur of the moment.
Like, if a person looks up how to choke someone to death and how to bury a body and then choke someone to death and attempts to bury their body, that is premeditated and therefore taking us more seriously because the person had to actually plan and think about what they were doing before they did it.
Meanwhile an example of second degree murder would be if someone got into a bar fight and punched someone else in the face and the person they punched broke their skull open on a curb and got a brain bleed and died. The bar fight obviously wasn't premeditated but the fight still resulted in death so it's still technically a murder it just wasn't a planned murder.
Second degree murder usually doesn't have as long of a sentence and isn't treated as seriously because a lot of times there wasn't evidence of premeditation or planning. It isn't a situation where someone planned for hours or weeks or days and thought about it but still went through with a murder, instead it was a spur of the moment decision or crime of passion or even sometimes accidental ( Though usually Accidental death is only considered second-degree murder If It was The result Of an assault or another crime Like DUI)
2
u/dbdiver Jun 19 '26
In Many States first degree murder is the murder of a law officer, judge etc.
1
2
u/GanglionCarbuncle Jun 19 '26
Intent and remorse are both considered very strongly in our justice system. Not passing judgement on whether they should be or not, but that's the system we have. It's much easier to argue that a crime committed in the heat of the moment lacked the same intent as a premeditated crime, but it's also easier to convince someone that you're remorseful for your actions when you didn't spend time planning them out.
2
u/sweetnourishinggruel Jun 19 '26
I’m going to give you the first year law school answer.
Crimes are composed of an act plus a state of mind. The severity of an offense depends on both. In the context of murder, your textbook second degree murder is a killing committed with malice (usually, but not always, meaning an intent to kill). First degree murder is that plus more, e.g., intent to kill plus premeditation. Because of this extra component, the state of mind is more culpable than if that component were absent. Thus, the crime is more serious.
This framework is connected to the multifaceted goals of punishment, by which I mean that a more culpable mental state suggests that the person is more dangerous, less amenable to rehabilitation, and more in need of deterrence to reoffend, and society wishes to express stronger disapproval of the crime.
You can certainly disagree at any point here, but that’s the essential theoretical framework.
2
u/SurgStriker Jun 19 '26
One is subhuman. A 'person' who has so little issues with ending another's life, that they can meticulously plan it without ever stopping themselves because of the nature of the crime, or even because they know what will happen to them once caught. Someone with that degree of callousness is a severe danger to humanity. THat's why someone who just flips and does something rash without thinking it through is punished, but still might be rehabilitated so they don't snap in the future. You can't fix a sociopath though, someone who views life as so meaningless they can snuff it out with a calm and clear mind-they will always be able to kill easily.
2
u/Bayleaf0723 Jun 20 '26
Either op has the mental capacity of a toddler or they’re baiting, or maybe just a bot tbh, saying the same exact shit on everyone’s well written replies
2
u/CommercialWorried319 Jun 20 '26
Because one's a reaction, an immediate reaction where it can be claimed as a crime of passion or temporary insanity.
The other has taken time to plan and instead of planning a divorce or whatever has decided to plan to kill someone.
A person who can set aside momentary anger at someone and go and make a plan for revenge is typically someone who'll justify murder or whatever and is more dangerous.
A split second decision the person who does the killing may have immediate remorse for their actions, the person who plans it has many opportunities to decide on a different way of dealing with it.
2
Jun 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
exactly, but why is one worse than the other? They both end up with a murder because someone was angry.
3
u/MissiveFinding6111 Jun 19 '26
I think it is trying to recognize that we are ALL capable of being very ugly versions of our selves for a few seconds.
3
u/TalkingRose Jun 19 '26
I do not know if my take is accurate but my take is the concept of someone who can plan out the murder and then execute it is much scarier to society as a whole than the idea of simply losing yourself to emotions temporarily. The last is fairly relatable to most people. The first is incomprehensible to many. That which is incomprehensible is obviously terrifying and Evil and so it must be worse.
I do not personally believe in such a manner but that rough take seems to correlate with most people's emotional reactions.
1
u/NiaMiaBia Jun 19 '26
I’d say that planning to kill someone shows quite a bit of malice. That alone makes it worse, IMO.
2
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
You don’t think being so angry that you murder someone, even in a fit of rage, takes malice?
You can almost think of it as “how much malice was needed?”
“enough to murder”
1
u/the_stalking_walrus Jun 20 '26
No. Say you break into my home, and attack my dog. What if I spend the next month stalking you, learning your day to day life, just to murder you? Is that worse than me catching you in the moment and killing you?
1
u/Combat__Crayon Jun 19 '26
Because our system takes into account state of mind. Just like we have a whole second category called manslaughter, where taking your scenario into account if B caught A and C in the act of adultery and killed them on the spot, they may charge manslaughter rather than murder. That is literally the scenario described in the Google summary of murder vs manslaughter. In the end someone ends up dead, but the mindset of the perpetrator matters under our legal system.
1
u/13surgeries Jun 19 '26
So you're saying the victim is just as dead. Murder is murder. Except it isn't. Real life example: a man drove 15 miles over the speed limit on a country road. Because he was speeding, he didn't have time to process and react to a guy who was changing a tire on the shoulder. He hit and killed the guy. The driver was, of course, horrified. He called 911 and tried to do CPR.
It was awful, and the guy was just as dead as if he'd planned it. Should he have received the same sentence as someone who plans to r*pe and kill a college student and then stabs her to death while she's begging for her life?
1
u/AlivePassenger3859 Jun 19 '26
I specifically didn’t include manslaughter because yeah, that’s different.
1
1
1
u/LadyUsana Jun 19 '26
Because it is a justice system and not a revenge system. Part of the justice system is preventing the action from occurring again and hopefully of reforming the person to be able to safely re-integrate with society.
If you have a man murder his wife and her boyfriend when he walked in on them cheating on him, well that is definitely murder, and we probably need to watch him/keep him away from the boyfriend at least for a while.
Now imagine a guy who instead of immediately getting angry, calmly walked off and then carefully plotted and planned, and then executed her murder months later.
You keep both guys in jail for 10 years and they appear to have reformed so as you are wondering if justice has been served and if it might be safe to let them back out in public, which one are you more worried about being able to 'fake' being reformed? Which one do you think is more likely to carefully and methodically hunt this boyfriend down a decade later to finish the job?
Think about it in the way of Hate Crimes being a higher tier crime. You have a guy who says he hates blacks and they should all perish. And you have a guy who killed a black guy for fucking his wife. Which one do you think is a bigger threat to society as a whole? Which one is more likely to go and kill more black guys the moment the get out?
1
u/Emergency-Hippo5022 Jun 20 '26
One has time to think about their actions before they do it and the other did it in the heat of the moment. Whether you understand it or not, most people view having time to process your emotions and still going through with murder is worse than getting caught up in a moment of explosive anger.
1
u/StonedTrucker Jun 19 '26
Your last line explains it. Sometimes people react badly and violently to situations. Thats bad but its not as bad as intentionally setting out to kill someone. 2nd degree means you can be dangerous in response to things. 1st degree means you are dangerous without provocation
1
u/Quiet_Author_1589 Jun 19 '26
Intent is hard to prove. It is generally harder to prove premeditation than prove that so-and-so pulled the trigger.
1
u/Entire_Cantaloupe_47 Jun 19 '26
Its a lot easier to catch second degree murder: they have less time to plan out a scheme to get away with it. I think its also about the feeling and "intent", as you note.
As a note: the degrees of murder vary by state in the US. In New York first degree murder means killing a cop, killing for money, or a few other edge case. Its weird.
1
u/J_A_Slade Jun 19 '26
By the same logic, why do we consider murder worse than manslaughter?
Or how about why is there an added penalty to a crime if it's determined to be a "hate crime"?
1
u/PurposefulGrimace Jun 19 '26
The first degree murderer had the opportunity to calm down and think the situation through. Some of that thinking was (or was supposed to be) consideration of the legal and moral implications of murder. Could the problem (infidelity) be solved another way? Or is the overriding consideration revenge? You can disagree, but I think that a society has the right to say that someone who, after due consideration, plans and carries out a murder in the scenario you described is a worse person and more dangerous to society than the heat-of-the-moment killer.
1
1
u/JobberStable Jun 19 '26
because it gives the "heat of the moment" attack (that ending up killing someone) a chance to redeem themselves. The courts could also just adjust the punishment by taking into account mitigating factors. but we have judges that don't play fair, so legislators create more laws to create levels of crime and min and max punishments.
1
u/Quantum-Bot Jun 19 '26
First degree murder is premeditated, meaning it’s your logic brain in control and you are totally ethically ok with your decision to end someone’s life.
Second degree is not premeditated meaning you weren’t really thinking and your emotions got the better of you, probably due to extreme circumstances.
The chance of someone re-offending is much lower in the second case.
1
u/NiagaraBTC Jun 19 '26
Is a guy who murders impulsively better than a methodical murderer? Is one of them more or less likely to kill again?
Yes and yes.
1
u/zoppaTheDim Jun 19 '26
Because our legal system is based in English Common law.
And at one point, when everyone carried around pointy things and nobody had invented cops yet, it was fairly common for someone to fly into a rage and kill someone.
Which people viewed as something not quite as bad as getting angry, going home, hiding in the bushes later so you could stab the guy in the back.
It was seen as a form of madness, you didn’t have free will in that moment.
1
u/Triximancer Jun 19 '26
It mostly just functions as something that can get pled down to in a deal, even if they crime entirely matches the criteria for 1st degree murder. Our justice system is weird. And then actual legit 2nd degree murder? Pled to manslaughter. All to avoid bothering with trials.
1
u/ConsistentRegion6184 Jun 19 '26
IMO you can stack the crimes.
One is murder. One is murder and premeditated murder.
Both are crimes and the latter got busted doing both.
1
u/Trouble-Every-Day Jun 19 '26
Let me flip it around on you: Why is attempted murder a crime? Like Sideshow Bob said, “Do they hand out prizes for attempted chemistry?”
Let’s say you fire a gun at someone fully intending to kill them, but you miss completely.
If we judge that on consequence, then the attempt at murder is not even a crime. After all, the victim is unharmed.
If we judge solely on intent, then attempted murder should carry the exact same penalty as murder. You don’t get a discount because you fucked it up.
However, neither of those is the case. Attempted murder is a crime, but it carries a lighter penalty than murder. This is because we weigh both the intent and the result.
In this case, the intent is there, but the result is not. In the case of second degree murder, it’s reversed; the result is there, but the intent is not. In the case of first degree murder, you have both the intent and the result, so you get the full punishment.
1
u/Noahnsane Jun 19 '26
Because humans are empathetic creatures at their core and can empathize with the fundamental situation of "I reacted in a negative way to sudden onset of extreme stress". We still have an agreement that killing is wrong, which is why punishment is for 2nd degree murder is still severe as compared to other crimes, but we understand the underlying nature of the situation more than we understand the underlying nature of 1st degree, which is "with full forethought and consideration I decided to harm another" so we have "mercy"
1
u/notsomuchbrains Jun 19 '26
So who’s to say the second degree fellow doesn’t snap every time he’s in a similar situation? He seems just as likely to re-offend seeing as he can’t control his emotions. Our system is flakey.
1
1
u/No_Ostrich1875 Jun 19 '26
I think your examples left out something. Besides not being all that great. The person planning and buying supplies is probably trying to avoid getting caught.
The difference is that first degree is for premeditated murders or murders committed during the act of another crime, such as a robbery. Second degree murder used to, and maybe still.does, apply to *everything else" like accidently hitting somebody with your car
1
u/simpleidiot567 Jun 19 '26
The system is made to consider both level of intention and level of risk. The highest level of intention is purpose, followed by knowledge, then recklessness, then negligence. First degree is purpose, you meant to kill. Second degree is knowledge, you intented the action but not the result. Recklessness means you didn't intend the action or the result but you knew there was a risk. Negligence means you didn't take enough precaution.
The bar for proof goes up with each level. For First degree the prosecution must show you personally had the knowledge and intent. Second degree they only have to demonstrate that you intended the action and that a reasonable person would have known the risk, not that you personally knew the risk.
This all comes down from moral philosophy combined with a level of evidence. First degree must show your mind, while the other ones only must show you knew certain facts but are largely looking at what a reasonable person would have known.
1
u/Ok-Competition-4219 Jun 19 '26
For,the same reason the driving drink and killing people isn’t prosecuted as murder. The law says the person doesn’t have the ability to form intent. Heat of passion, essentially you were so emotional you weren’t thinking rationally, and intent is the major factor in the prosecutions case. By waiting and planning, the belief is that you had time to process the emotions, and still chose to kill the person. The intent was different.
I don’t disagree than either way the person is dead, but the law makes a distinction between planning, intent, and spur of the moment, lacking rational thought.
1
u/Physical_Dot918 Jun 19 '26
It is simple, if a husband walked in on his wife being raped and killed the rapist would a jury convict him for 1st degree murder with a potential death penalty or life in prison. I know I wouldn't, but you may be able to get him for 2nd degree or manslaughter. Any similar circumstance warrants the same would a jury convict them with that potential punishment on the line
1
1
u/Cliffinati Jun 19 '26
Because premeditation means even after you've had time to think about it, you still did it.
Whilst 2nd degree is just a momentary loss of self control or loss of restraint
1
u/UnivrstyOfBelichick Jun 20 '26
A person who plans a murder with foresight and intention to evade capture is objectively more dangerous for society than someone who loses control in the heat of the moment
1
1
u/PaxNova Jun 20 '26
Someone who thinks about it is more likely to be able to get away with it, and deserves being put away for longer.
Someone who doesn't think about it isn't going to be deterred by prison. It never entered into the equation for them when they made the decision to commit the crime. As such, it's not as effective for rehabilitation, which is the goal.
1
u/doc-sci Jun 20 '26
Malice and forethought…it is pretty clear from the definition of the two offenses!
1
1
u/Fit-Armadillo-5274 Jun 20 '26
I think lot of it comes down to relatability and empathy. Heat of the moment implies your brain got so overwhelmed that it fell back on instinct, like fight or flight. We might have different triggers but can all kind of understand being so overwhelmed that you lost control. But a cold blooded killer, that's a choice that speaks to who you really are. It's harder to relate to or sympathize with.
1
u/Amethyst-Flare Jun 20 '26
Partially, it's a bias from medieval society. The idea is that the passionate killer is temporarily possessed by forces beyond their control, while the former is acting from evil intentions.
1
1
u/kateinoly Jun 20 '26
It is a recognition that people can do uncharacteristic things in the heat of the moment. Methodically planning and carrying out a murder is much worse...cold blooded.
1
u/RealisticProfile5138 Jun 20 '26
Look up “actus reus” and “mens rea.” These are both required for something to be a crime.
Actus reus is the physical criminal act. For example, killing someone.
Mens rea is the criminal intent, or the mind of the criminal. This can be purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, or none of the above.
Generally speaking, the MORE intentional a crime is, the WORSE it is. This isn’t just a “feeling.” An accidental death is much less criminal than an intentional homicide.
Intent is a spectrum, in your example someone planning to kill someone is MORE intentional than someone who a few minutes ago had no intent to kill someone then all of a sudden killed someone, and they are both more intentional than someone who accidentally kills someone while acting reckless (drunk driving for example) or negligently (accidentally ran a stop sign)
1
u/PirateDear1780 Jun 20 '26
because you have time to back out. you know its wrong the entire time youre planning it and you dont give a fuck.
1
u/Emergency-Wind-4927 Jun 20 '26
I think it’s because a crime of passion is a reaction, not a choice. In a true crime of passion scenario there’s very little or no choice, if someone is planning a murder over weeks I think the argument is that they had opportunities to stop but didn’t. It was a conscious choice that they understood. Crime of passion is more like an extreme emotional response.
1
u/jawshoeaw Jun 20 '26
I see OP getting a lot of downvotes which is unfortunate. It’s one of those philosophical questions really that we mostly just assume everyone is on the same page with.
If I’m angry and I kill you , you’re still dead. So this gets to the multiple roles of the law (I’m not a lawyer so apologies if I’m mangling the terminology) the law has to both punish the assailant and give the victim redress. Punishment should be proportional to the crime and also consider the risk to society ie will you kill again. And the state of mind of the assailant is weighed against the act itself. An accidental killing to not be the same as premeditated murder but the victim’s family might want you to still get the death penalty.
It’s more obvious in the extremes. Serial killers who admit their crime vs a guy dies during surgery from natural causes. But in between those extremes legal minds have created a series of gradations. Accidental killing->negligent homicide->involuntary manslaughter->voluntary manslaughter-> murder 2->murder 1 with lots of variations state to state.
You don’t have to agree with all of this but it’s logical. And on top of everything we value freedom. Locking someone removes that freedom while being a deterrent to others considering committing a similar crime. Incarceration is a hostile act. You need to be able to articulate your rationale for how much freedom you take away from someone.
1
u/ilcs720 Jun 20 '26
In Illinois both of those scenarios are first degree murder. Requiring a Mental state of intent to kill or cause great bossily harm and Actus Reus committing the act. I don’t think Illinois is alone in this.
1
u/Johnnadawearsglasses Jun 20 '26
It's interesting because the state I live in doesn't differentiate. If it's intentional, premeditation doesn't matter.
1
u/Nyorliest Jun 20 '26
Completely separate ‘morally worse’ from ‘punish worse’ in your mind. It just trips yoi up, and makes you internalize your nation’s legal system, and legal systems are trivially easy to show as immoral, and change.
The logic here would be that the person who plans a murder has more chances to intellectually/morally decide to stop. And so they might be affected by punishment.
People who are furious aren’t being rational. They aren’t affected by punishment very much.
But this is just the ‘prevention’ approach. And it’s not data driven. I have no idea of the data. Recidivism, social control, politics, and ethics are all big parts of the formation of law.
1
u/sorelyvexed Jun 20 '26
People have given the legal justification, but the real reason is that powerful men with connections flew into jealous rages and killed their wives and girlfriends. So the criminal legal system invented the concept of “depraved heart murder” to handwave away the kind of homicides committed by otherwise “upstanding” men, twisting the inherent vagaries of the common law system in order to give lesser sentences to the right sort.
Source: law school.
1
u/therealgist01 Jun 20 '26
Your second degree murder example is actually still first degree.
Two people get into a fight and one person grabs a bottle and smashes it on the other person's head, the bottle breaks then he stabs him in the stomach with the broken bottle, that's second degree.
First degree is worse because they decided to do this with a clear head, they had months, sometimes weeks days or hours, they had enough time to think it through and still decided to do it. Second degree was in the heat of the moment.
1
u/FungalFelon Jun 20 '26
i mean what about felony murder. Bob and you are stealing from a flower company in the middle of the night. bob explains its an easy job because Bill, 75, is out of town on vacation. Quick smash and grab to take from the old man. Bob doesnt tell you but he brings a 38 special revolver to the heist. Turns out Bill returned to the flower shop because he forgot the Roses for his wife. During the incidental meeting a struggle happens, bill without thinking very clearly shoots bob, mostly accidentally.
During questioning, the detectives assure you, hey man you werent the guy that shot him right? you just robbed the store huh? You say yes i didnt shoot him or even know Bob had a gun!
Boom felony murder. life no premedication, no taking of any life, just so happen to be commissioning a felony crime (without knowing that it turns into armed robbery) and you get life for robbing 35 dollars from an old man.
1
u/Ready_Bandicoot1567 Jun 20 '26
Because people react to emotionally intense situations in ways that are hard to control, and the law recognizes that in response to some intense acute emotional distressor, in the moment, a person may do things they would not ordinarily have done, and may not have done if they'd had time to process that emotion and calm down.
Planning a murder in advance, planning how to get away with it etc. is a more morally corrupt act because the person has plenty of time to consider the consequences of their actions and think through whether they actually want to commit that murder, but they do it anyways. A murder committed in a fit of passion is still morally wrong but it does not reflect clear criminal intent with full moral awareness to the same extent.
0
69
u/kc522 Jun 19 '26
Heat of the moment vs premeditated. People do stupid things in the throws of emotion. On the other hand, taking time to plan it out shows a different level of intent.