There is a great difference here between those chargedwith murder and those convicted of murder.
If someone is simply charged with murder they are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore a person charged with murder is treated just as they would be if they hadn't been charged.
However, if convicted of murder, then that is a different matter.
Again, there is a great difference between forgiveness and justice. The tendency of the Christian is that the person should be forgiven. However, this is only possible if the person convicted of murder shows remorse. If he/she is sorry, then the Christian must be ready to forgive however difficult this might be.
This does not mean, however, that the murderer gets off scot-free from punishment; far from it. Punishment must still be forthcoming if justice is to be done, even though he is forgiven for what he did.
As to the nature of the punishment, again there are differences. Some (say, in the USA) will insist on the death penalty and quote scripture ("an eye for an eye" etc) to back this up. This is a totally incorrect interpretation of this passage, as the original meaning of this passage was to limit punishment rather than a tit-for-tat punishment. It was designed to protact victims against personal vendettas that went on for ages although the agreed punishment had been fulfilled.
Most Christians today agree that taking a God given life is wrong - no matter to whom that life belongs. Therefore they believe that it is totally wrong that a person who has taken a life should then be 'legally' killed if all life is sacred. If all life is indeed sacred, then so to is the life of the murderer.
Instead, most Christians agree that a suitable term of imprisonment should be imposed instead. This could mean life for the serial murderer, or a substantial number of years for the murder for, say, financial gain through to even a suspended sentence for the murder of, say, a violent husband by a battered wife when acting in self defence.
Many hard-line 'Christians' will claim the death penalty for all murder, especially in the USA, but murder is a crime that has to be considered against the background of the circumstances, however emotive. It is of interest that, in the UK where I come from, we have not had the death sentence for nearly 50 years, and the rate of murder is far less than the USA which still uses this ultimate punishment. It's also interesting that most of the countries of the world that retain the death penalty have also the highest rates of murder whereas those where murder is punished by a prison sentence have, on the whole, lower rates.
I know a few christians and they all think murder is a terrible sin and you will go to hell.
Murder
Premeditated violent murder
yes
=== === yes they should because drunk drivers kill people due to the accidents they cause
No, Aaron Burr should not have been charged with the murder of Hamilton. The two men agreed to meet for a formal pistol duel. Dueling itself was illegal, but not considered murder. Burr won the duel, and Hamilton died. Burr was in fact charged in both New Jersey, where the duel took place, and in New York where it was planned. He was acquitted on all counts as judges and juries did not look upon voluntary participation in a duel as something that should be punished by law.
The question is both worded incorrectly, and is un-answerable - it is not a matter of opinion as to whether he should or should not be charged. The laws of his state will dictate the charge (if any) in this instance.
Yes it is. And those members of Congress who tried to destroy it, by killing it in 2006 should be charged with murder now that we can pretend corporations are people!
no i dont think so but then again EVERYONE has their own opinion but for the time Being Kane should be ARRESTED and charged with possible murder
They should be charged with assault.
The young man may be charged with "Conspiracy to Commit First Degree Murder". The sentence varies from state to state, but twenty years is a reasonable number to assume. Depending on the circumstances, the charges may be lessened, but the young man should be prepared for the worst.
No. You should not shoot anyone, regardless of whether you like them or the way they live their lives. If you shoot and kill them, you can be charged with murder. If you shoot but do not kill them, you would be charged with attempted murder and/or aggravated battery, as well as a number of other crimes. Additionally, most states have "hate crime" statutes, that encourage harsher punishments for defendants who commit crimes motivated by prejudice or discrimination, such as attacking someone because of their race or sexual orientation.
Yes, now a day if you have anything to do with the murder of that person, it is possible you could do more time then the actual murderer. If the murderer rats you out den your dead meat. I'm studying law and 15 to 25 years is the minimum amount. well, they should because the other person was stupid enough to listen