What is the difference between a soldier and a murderer

Comon OP You're better than this OT: Murder is when the act of killing is not within the law. Some soldiers may be murderers, but in the definition of the word, only those that step out of the law the line sets for them.

Sakuraoka said: ThRippJck said: Sakuraoka said: ThRippJck said: Sakuraoka said: hmm i think both do it for teh lulz, except that soldiers are more sissy because they go through great lenghts to do it in a more safe and sissified way.

ThRippJck said: Sakuraoka said: ThRippJck said: Sakuraoka said: ThRippJck said: Sakuraoka said: hmm i think both do it for teh lulz, except that soldiers are more sissy because they go through great lenghts to do it in a more safe and sissified way. A murderer is someone who simply kills A soldier on the hand kills for the greater agenda of his higher ups which may or may not be noble Defending the homeland and such.

In Generality One act is considered as Dharma and other act is considered as Adharma. I think this video does a good job at describing the difference. A solider is a tool, a murderer has their own will. No difference, to be honest. Army is just an excuse for using violence. SmoothJazzDavis said: No difference, to be honest. Thanks for the laughs everyone.

Morally, killing is frowned upon in general. Despite that there's no difference except that the other may have tactical training and etcetera. Shifted responsibility. Not that I'm particularly anti-soldier, though that response may skew that way. Soldier's have permission to kill while murderer's are not. Signature removed. All soldiers has to become murderers at some point. But all murderers aren't soldiers. During the Nuremberg Trials many Nazi soldiers had used the reasoning that since they were under orders, legally binding orders, to carry out genocidal acts they could therefore not be found criminally guilty because no crime had been committed.

However, the final judgement was that they had ought to have contemplated the effects of their actions and were subsequently found guilty. This alone doesn't really answer your question, but from my perspective it highlights the concept of willingness being what separates a soldier and a murderer to a degree. It might be a stretch to state this as well as ironic, but I think a good deal of soldiers in actuality do not wish to kill anyone.

I know there are a few loopholes in the perspective I put forth, but I think the answer I can give based on what I've said is that it is willingness that separates the two categories to a degree, with some individuals on both sides sharing the will to kill. The difference, of course, is that premeditated murder carries a minimum mandatory sentence of lifetime confinement with eligibility for parole.

The difference between premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder is often a matter of discretion for convening authorities and prosecutors and nothing more. The minimum mandatory sentence of a lifetime of confinement is one of the worst features of our criminal justice system, but not likely to change given its propensity for facilitating guilty pleas for the risk-averse client.

The minimum mandatory sentence provides a powerful incentive for witnesses to lie. The stakes are so high such that coercive law enforcement techniques can undermine faith in the integrity of the system. We say the differences in specific intent is nothing more than discretionary because in practical terms the difference is so imperceptible that juries may struggle to distinguish the two. The authors of this book have represented many service members over the last 10 years involved in combat-related homicides.

Two cases come immediately to mind. They are factually very similar and involved Soldiers who killed detainees on the battlefield during or immediately following the cessation of combat activities. They both had similar states of mind. The first Soldier was convicted of unpremeditated murder and received a year sentence of confinement from a jury and received parole after service 6 years. The second Soldier, whom the authors represented on appeal, was convicted of premeditated murder and is serving a life sentence with eligibility for parole.

The sentence disparity for factually similar offenses is obvious. Expert assistance is a must. Defense counsel will immediately want to obtain the services of a forensic psychiatrist or forensic psychologist. Skillful use of expert testimony may help in convincing charging authorities to reduce a charge from premeditated murder to a lesser-included offense.

After examining the issues of specific intent, counsel will likely want to examine the factual circumstances and potential affirmative defenses under Rule for Courts-Martial Those are examined in greater detail below.

The most important thing that a lawyer can do in a murder crime is to preserve the crime scene. Witness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony. Travel and Places. Blog Help. This website uses cookies As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. This is used to prevent bots and spam. Privacy Policy. This is used to detect comment spam.

This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service.

This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos.

Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis. This is feature allows you to search the site. Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. Biglow sadly and cynically declares the true purpose of war to be based in greed and covetousness.

Perhaps Lowell's character had a point, but going by strict definitions, Biglow was wrong. Murder isn't simply the act of killing someone. It's a legal term that defines an unlawful killing. The adjective unlawful makes all the difference. One person shooting another on the streets may be murder, but on the battlefield it's condoned. In a war in which the involved parties have all openly declared hostilities, killing enemy soldiers on the battlefield is legal.

Since murder is illegal by definition, killing a soldier on the battlefield in a war can't be murder. A soldier who kills an enemy under the rules of war isn't a murderer.

It's important to remember the rules of war.