Conversatory

 

S C R I P T

¿Do you think that the number of years in prison that a murderer must pay should be directly proportional to the age of the victim and the decision of the family?

Gabriela: Murder is punishable ranging from 15 to 20 years in prison at least, rising up to 25 years if two or more specific circumstances of the crime: it was committed with malice aforethought, with concurrence price aforethought with any combination of the three or all three cases at the same time.

Maria Lucia: I don’t agree because, apart from the fact, there is already a sentence that depends on the type of murder that was committed, there are factors such as the family's resentment towards the murderer. Even cases in which the murderer was forgiven, that is, when the family does not want to give a sentence to the murderer, complicating the situation a lot.

Daniel: The murderers should pay a sentence equal to the years that their victims had, since their life time was taken away, that is why I am in favor of the murderers' sentence being equal to the age of the victim, no matter what be it a young person or an adult, since their time has been taken away and they must be condemned in the same way, without the need to kill them.

Juan Sebastián: I don’t agree, because from a certain point this motion becomes subjective, since it would not be fair for someone who kills a 2-year-old child to pay 2 years in prison, since regardless of the age of the victim, the person is still a murderer and no responsibility can be taken away from him, furthermore this is a decision that is already linked to certain legal parameters already established.

Angely: I agree that the relatives of the victim are the ones who decide the number of years of sentence for the people who committed this crime, since justice could be achieved for those who are no longer there, because justice is rarely achieved for these people. In addition, when choosing the sentence, the murderers can reflect and thus there will be no more cases like these.

Marcela: I agree that the decision to convict the murderers is made by the victim's family, as regardless of how they were killed, whether intentionally or accidentally, only the family knows the amount of suffering they have actually gone through. Therefore, it is they who must decide the sentence of the murderers, it is they who will suffer the rest of their lives due to the absence of their family member.

Laura: I am against it because regardless of the age of the victim to apply the sentence, the murderer must meet certain parameters, so the investigation will begin if it was a first- or second-degree homicide, taking into account the above facts. That is why I do not believe that the amount of life of a person is the factor that will determine the length of the sentence. The convicted person must abide by the sentence of the judge.

Catalina: I think that the murderers should pay for the years that the people who took their lives had, since only in this way would they be paying for the time that the murdered person lived with their loved ones, learned, I enjoy life, among many other things. If the chain of years that you have to pay is less than the age of the victim then you would not be paying enough or the same pain that you caused both the victim and his family

Eduardo: I do not completely agree with this since the value of a person's life should not be measured by the years they lived, each person is worth the same, so I consider that it should not be judged in this way, I support the chain perpetual for those who murder someone, I also consider that the family should not choose the number of years of petition of the murderer since many times these people would be carried away by a subjective judgment and not an objective one.

Maria Lucia: When we are talking about a sentence that depends on the age of the victim, it would not be fair either, because, as said before, if a person is too young, the murderer would not have a fair sentence seen from the victim's side. Moreover, if this victim were too old, it would not be fair to the murderer either.

Daniel: In my opinion, the family of the victim should not choose the time that the condemned person will spend, since normally the family would give them a life sentence, because they rarely forgive the murderers

Romero: I also do not agree that the family of the victim is the one who interposes the sentence to the murderer, since in most cases they will always want him to pay the maximum penalty, which would not be fair and it would also be subjective.

Angely: I agree with the sentence based on the year of the victim, because it is necessary that they have a sanction for committing this crime. In addition, most murders occur between the ages of 10 and 17, meaning they can serve a normal 15-year sentence.

Marcela: I agree that the sentence of the murderers is equal to the age of the victim, since it is making the years that that person lived to become something that was not worth it, and for the murderers it must also be a few years of misery and to pay for his crime.

Laura: The family cannot be against the judge, the victim's relatives have the right to give their opinion as long as they refrain from going, the judge will meet and the laws stipulated in this way can give the victim justified options as well as the statements.

Catalina: Usually the sentences for homicide are usually 15 to 25 years in jail, however, according to the families, this time is almost never enough, and it is that after all they are the only ones who understand and know the pain that was felt to lose their being loved by the hands of another person, taking this into account I believe that the victim's families should be able to dictate the time of the murderer's sentence, since this would be more fair the time that he would have to pay in a prison

Eduardo: I believe that judges are the most qualified to give a sentence because their function is that through their sentences, they readjust the content of duty to the precise temporal and spatial condition in which it is required. The judge makes the law fair, that the norm approximates justice, to guide the specific decision in which each one is given what is due.

Gabriela: To conclude, we saw the different opinions regarding the initial question, some of the participants agreed and others against, to validate their points of view they used verified information making this debate an interesting activity.