That's a big part of what the legal system is about, to me... help people make decisions that aren't their first instincts, but ultimately lead to better results, in average.

It's also part of what you want to ingrain in the collective conscience. A certain sense of order. Think, for example, Japan - where people refuse to cross a red light, even if there isn't a car in sight - because there is a very strong sense of order. And, I think, indirectly, that also contributes to lower overall criminality, elsewhere. In the same way, I think it would be good to *officially*, as much as possible, present using violence to solve any of your problems, in any circumstance, as a bad thing. And then, let happen what happens if people *do* fall victim to their natural instincts in more extreme cases, with a lenient judge.

well, I'm inclined to say the killing was justified, but just in this scenario cuz we are talking aboit a 78 year old man here. I dont buy into the idea that capital punishment is the proper sentence for what this kind of criminals.

You decided to ignore the moral of the story though, and that is that even though people make mistakes and always will, with the right education and help along the way, a lot of them will be able turn themselves around into valuable members of society.

That's not going to happen if you chop their hands off for petty theft, be it at age five or age sixteen. Most societies have realized that a working taxpayer is more valuable than a cripple, a man wasting away in prison or a dead man. That is why contry in particular has a prison system that is targeted towards rehabilitation and protection rather than punishment.

People who are and will remain a danger to society, will remain incarcerated, but everyone else should be helped to reintegrate and become reformed.

An investigation is to find out the truth, and from that determine whether a crime is commited.

Let's look at some other possible scenarios:

- Home owner tricks or coerces someone into his home and stabs him to death, claims burglary.
- burglar enters home because they are threatened by another to do so. Home owner finds intruder and chases them out of the house, killing them as they are leaving. This kind of thing happens all the time, using someone vulnerable to do your dirty work when the risk is too great for yourself.
- someone enters your home under immediate threat from something (perhaps they have been attacked but manage to escape and flee to the nearest home in order to find help) home owner kills on site because they suspect burglary.

Capital punishement for minor crimes, and carte blanche get out of jail free cards for killing when it's your property are not indicative of a good justice system, as someone else said in the thread it's rarely so black and white. You don't just suddenly get morals at 16.

I'm pretty sure we have differing opinions on this. I don't consider it self-defense if you get cornered somewhere but not directly threatened beyond that. For self-defense, you would have to be directly threatened by violence. Killing someone is much more serious than simple burglary, and as much as it sucks, if you're not threatened, you should not attack the burglars lethally. Everything needs a properly weighted counter-act, and I consider killing someone much more serious that burglary. In other words, I suppose, I think you should always use the minimum amount of force necessary.

If the victim was female and it was about rape, I don't see how the situation is any different. You can't stab people pre-emptively just because you think they might be going to do something, but as soon as the threat realizes, you should definitely be allowed to defend yourself. For example, if you have a knife, and the rapist approaches you and tries to violate you despite it, let the stabbing commence! If it's all talk without any actions yet, it's probably less clear, but if the threat seems imminent, it might be reasonable to consider it self-defense.

Agreed, what the hell is a "burgalur"? Are we back in the days of #Covfefe 

In any case Stabbing is a bit too brutal, unless the guy had no choice. I'd say when home invaded, the victim must have the legal advantage and it must be up to the invader to justify legally that he was unreasonably dealt with. Otherwise there can be some abuse by the victim. But again,the advantage must clearly be on the side of the victim as the home invader had no business whatsoever invading the victim's home. So for the pole I voted as uncertain.

If you don't think he did anything bad though, then what are you proposing be done?

A fine would work, perhaps?

Criminally, nothing wrong, simply classify it as disorderly conduct.

But why a fine at all? If he did nothing bad I don't think he should get any punitive repercussions.

I see it as disincentivization, I guess not everyone's for measures like that.

The important point for me is that it's *officially* illegal - to help build the collective conscience that it's a bad thing, that you should avoid, if at all possible.