A century old rule that a witness has every right to refuse to answer any question he thinks may incriminate him – let’s discuss that today. If A killed B and stood witness saying that he had seen A kill B, would he be convicted? My point is – such incidents rarely get highlighted and are subject to legal manipulation. For ex., Mr. xyz has killed his wife and surrenders in court stating that he killed his wife. He then gives evidence and here comes the crucial part – the motive. He can say that he killed her in a fit of passion – meaning the sentence is reduced. He can also provide any reason and get away with it. But would a crime of passion or any other crime still not qualify as murder? Whether pre mediated or not?

Let’s take a peek at another reason why a witness need not answer any question. A witness may be murdering someone, or running around trees with a paramour, or simply taking drugs and hence definitely need not answer so simple a question as “What were you doing at that time?” This can trigger a barrage of questions which can also question the credibility of the witness and hence he can seek not to answer it…

The right to live is the first and foremost right of every human being be it even in a dictatorship. However, this is subject to a few exceptions. One is he is subject to the law of the nation. The other exception is subjective to his not having killed anyone else. And hence you understand that white collar crime –taking possession of your money and property does not entitle me to death. Money is inconsequential, so how does it matter how much money I make of your guiles? In a way it makes sense as long as there is no death involved. However, with most that is what causes the murder. Enron provided false statements of its corporate results thus pumping up its value. When millions of investors lost, there were reportedly a few suicides. Now shouldn’t the person behind the embezzlement be hanged for causing murder?