Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Can we ever see why someone would unlawfully kill someone else? Is murder ever justifiable?

I'd say that part of the connotation of murder is that it is unjustified.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say that part of the connotation of murder is that it is unjustified.

However if you killed someone because they had told you they were going to kill someone else and shown you the weapon, despite the fact they said they were not going to do it for a week. Would that be justified?

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
However if you killed someone because they had told you they were going to kill someone else and shown you the weapon, despite the fact they said they were not going to do it for a week. Would that be justified?

No, that's all speculation. You cant kill someone because all they did was "say" they were going to kill another person.

I think that if someone has proven that they want to harm/kill you it's ok.

I also think that it should be alright if like, a girl has been sexually abused by someone for years to finally kill him.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
However if you killed someone because they had told you they were going to kill someone else and shown you the weapon, despite the fact they said they were not going to do it for a week. Would that be justified?

Generally, no. There are lots of other options that end with no one dead.

Murder is for people who lack creativity.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Can we ever see why someone would unlawfully kill someone else? Is murder ever justifiable?

By definition murder is unjustified. If it is, it's no longer murder but killing, executing or death.

So, no.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd say that part of the connotation of murder is that it is unjustified.

I argee as well and I think that if someone does murder they should get the chair for a punishment.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I argee as well and I think that if someone does murder they should get the chair for a punishment.

That will teach them the lesson of never doing it again.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
However if you killed someone because they had told you they were going to kill someone else and shown you the weapon, despite the fact they said they were not going to do it for a week. Would that be justified?

even if we assume that I am the only one who can do anything to stop the murder, wouldn't jumping the guy the next day and kidnapping him be a much preferable option?

the obvious answer otherwise being, call the police

I think there may be circumstances where something that would end up getting you convicted of murder could be moral.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think there may be circumstances where something that would end up getting you convicted of murder could be moral.

As do I. :-)

But if you kill someone to protect yourself or your loved one it isn't murder. Murder isn't "anytime you kill another person".

Like Robtard and Chaos said, in order for it to be murder, it has to be unjust. If you were justified in killing someone, it isn't murder.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But if you kill someone to protect yourself or your loved one it isn't murder. Murder isn't "anytime you kill another person".

Like Robtard and Chaos said, in order for it to be murder, it has to be unjust. If you were justified in killing someone, it isn't murder.

That's not what bardock and I are suggesting.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
That's not what bardock and I are suggesting.

Oh? So you are saying that it is possible for you to be justified in killing someone unjustly?

Originally posted by TacDavey
Oh? So you are saying that it is possible for you to be justified in killing someone unjustly?

I'm saying sometimes what the law considers unjustifiable, personal ethics might consider justifiable.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think there may be circumstances where something that would end up getting you convicted of murder could be moral.

Yeah, at some point you have to get into the difference between murder in the moral sense and in the legal sense.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I'm saying sometimes what the law considers unjustifiable, personal ethics might consider justifiable.

So what you are really saying is that you believe the law considers some things murder that really aren't.

That doesn't make murder justified. It makes the law mistaken about what things fall under the category of murder.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So what you are really saying is that you believe the law considers some things murder that really aren't.

That doesn't make murder justified. It makes the law mistaken about what things fall under the category of murder.

No, that's not what i'm saying it might still be murder, but ethically or emotionally justifiable to me. It might be neither to you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, at some point you have to get into the difference between murder in the moral sense and in the legal sense.

Absolutely.

There are always mitigating circumstances, even in the most open and shut cases.

And this is a whole 'nother thread, but I do think the death penalty is murder. Lawful, ordained murder, but still the taking of a life. I'm in the school of "death is not bad enough, give them life in prison without parole, and be short on privileges."

Originally posted by siriuswriter
There are always mitigating circumstances, even in the most open and shut cases.

And this is a whole 'nother thread, but I do think the death penalty is murder. Lawful, ordained murder, but still the taking of a life. I'm in the school of "death is not bad enough, give them life in prison without parole, and be short on privileges."

I'm of the school re: death penalty sometimes the system makes mistakes and they are impossible to correct in any way if you've killed someone.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
I'm of the school re: death penalty sometimes the system makes mistakes and they are impossible to correct in any way if you've killed someone.

I agree, human fallibility is another large reason I am against the death penalty.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
No, that's not what i'm saying it might still be murder, but ethically or emotionally justifiable to me. It might be neither to you.

If you consider something justified, then you don't consider it murder.

If you think an action is justified that I don't. That doesn't mean you think murder is justified, it means you think something isn't murder that I consider murder.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
I agree, human fallibility is another large reason I am against the death penalty.

I'm not overly vengeful. It's usually an error. I beleive in just punishment, the removal of liberty should be the punishment, nothing else. It's actually a lot.

Originally posted by TacDavey
If you consider something justified, then you don't consider it murder.

If you think an action is justified that I don't. That doesn't mean you think murder is justified, it means you think something isn't murder that I consider murder.

Murder isn't about my justification Tac, it's a legal term with specific criteria. My belief in the justification of an action doesn't matter.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Murder isn't about my justification Tac, it's a legal term with specific criteria. My belief in the justification of an action doesn't matter.

Mmm... You might be right. Technically, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of someone. So the law determines what is or isn't murder. I held murder to mean "unjust killing", but that isn't really what it is.

Alright, in regards to the original question, I can't really say. I don't really know exactly what is "unlawful" killing and what isn't.

You said there were circumstances in which murder would be justified. What are some examples?

I don't think death penalty should be legal; everything i've seen has convinced that the death penalty does nothing to stop crime, so the only motivation can be some abstract idea of "revenge", which is not something we should be basing our crime & punishment system on.

Originally posted by King Kandy
I don't think death penalty should be legal; everything i've seen has convinced that the death penalty does nothing to stop crime, so the only motivation can be some abstract idea of "revenge", which is not something we should be basing our crime & punishment system on.

I think some people also argue that they are taking up resources and money that we need to spend to house them. And space too.

Semantics and definitions. Murder is never justified. killing someone can be.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I think some people also argue that they are taking up resources and money that we need to spend to house them. And space too.
Well I think that's nonsense. We could fix that problem, just by reducing harshness in general. In the US, we hand out life sentences for way too many crimes. In Norway the max sentence is 21 years regardless of what you do. In fact, many countries get by fine without life or death sentences.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well I think that's nonsense. We could fix that problem, just by reducing harshness in general. In the US, we hand out life sentences for way too many crimes. In Norway the max sentence is 21 years regardless of what you do. In fact, many countries get by fine without life or death sentences.

I sure wouldn't want Jack the Ripper let out at any point ever again. Some people need to be removed permanently. Either by keeping them separated from the public in prison, or removing them from the earth.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I sure wouldn't want Jack the Ripper let out at any point ever again. Some people need to be removed permanently. Either by keeping them separated from the public in prison, or removing them from the earth.

And even in Norway he wouldn't be. While the longest possible sentence is 21 years particularly dangerous people could end up staying forever via constant 5 year extensions.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And even in Norway he wouldn't be. While the longest possible sentence is 21 years particularly dangerous people could end up staying forever via constant 5 year extensions.

So it's just a more round about way of giving them a life sentence. And we're back where we started.

There are some people who shouldn't ever be put back into the public. It's either life in prison or death.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So it's just a more round about way of giving them a life sentence. And we're back where we started.

There are some people who shouldn't ever be put back into the public. It's either life in prison or death.
The US hands out life sentences for far more than "jack the rippers".

Originally posted by King Kandy
The US hands out life sentences for far more than "jack the rippers".

Maybe. And maybe not everyone who get's put in prison deserves to be there forever.

But's not really the point. You can't just completely do away with it. Some people cannot be allowed to ever walk among the general population. So what do we do with them?

Originally posted by TacDavey
But's not really the point. You can't just completely do away with it. Some people cannot be allowed to ever walk among the general population. So what do we do with them?

but its not "life in prison with no possibility of parole" or "in the public"

there are clearly systems that allow for both rehabilitation and keeping dangerous people behind bars

sure, there are probably strong demographic reasons why Norway's system couldn't just be adopted in America, but it could certainly be used as a model

Originally posted by TacDavey
Maybe. And maybe not everyone who get's put in prison deserves to be there forever.

But's not really the point. You can't just completely do away with it. Some people cannot be allowed to ever walk among the general population. So what do we do with them?

This was my original quote:

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well I think that's nonsense. We could fix that problem, just by reducing harshness in general. In the US, we hand out life sentences for way too many crimes. In Norway the max sentence is 21 years regardless of what you do. In fact, many countries get by fine without life or death sentences.

Notice how I said "REDUCING" harshness, and that we hand out life sentences for too many crimes. I never advocated removing the life sentences for every circumstance, ever; I just called attention to it's overuse, and the comparatively liberal solutions other countries have found.

Originally posted by King Kandy
This was my original quote:



Notice how I said "REDUCING" harshness, and that we hand out life sentences for too many crimes. I never advocated removing the life sentences for every circumstance, ever; I just called attention to it's overuse, and the comparatively liberal solutions other countries have found.

Ah, I see. The Norway example threw me. My mistake.

Originally posted by inimalist
but its not "life in prison with no possibility of parole" or "in the public"

there are clearly systems that allow for both rehabilitation and keeping dangerous people behind bars

sure, there are probably strong demographic reasons why Norway's system couldn't just be adopted in America, but it could certainly be used as a model

But how is the Norway system any different than ours? They still serve life sentences, it's just done in a more round about way.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But how is the Norway system any different than ours? They still serve life sentences, it's just done in a more round about way.
Because they only hand them out to people who they can continually prove will be violent if released... while we hand them out for many crimes, that are not even violent at all, and really have no process by which people can demonstrate they no longer pose a threat.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Can we ever see why someone would unlawfully kill someone else? Is murder ever justifiable?

Murder is strictly defined as illegal killing, but it is not exactly unethical killing. Hence, it may be illegal in some places in the world to defend yourself from harm with lethal force, but it may not be ethically gray.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Murder is strictly defined as illegal killing, but it is not exactly unethical killing. Hence, it may be illegal in some places in the world to defend yourself from harm with lethal force, but it may not be ethically gray. and morally/emotionally grey?

I thinks so also.

Just look at an episode of Dexter.

Been doing that all morning. Awesome show.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Been doing that all morning. Awesome show.

Peaked at series two in my opinion, still love it though.

Doakes' rivalry with Dexter was the best inter-character development I've seen so far--his death really felt like it meant more than anyone else's.

But no episode has been below an 8/10 though.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Doakes' rivalry with Dexter was the best inter-character development I've seen so far--his death really felt like it meant more than anyone else's.

But no episode has been below an 8/10 though.

Agreed on all counts except the genuinely depressing first 2 episodes of last season which bored me shitless.

Originally posted by Daemon Seed
and morally/emotionally grey?

I thinks so also.

Just look at an episode of Dexter.

Mores and emotions vary from person to person, so your mileage may vary as well.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Mores and emotions vary from person to person, so your mileage may vary as well.

That's a given.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Because they only hand them out to people who they can continually prove will be violent if released... while we hand them out for many crimes, that are not even violent at all, and really have no process by which people can demonstrate they no longer pose a threat.

So what happens every five years when the serial rapist/killer is let out and has to prove that he's still bad? Do the police allow them to rape/kill again before they get the point of "Okay, back in for another five." Five years isn't that long of a time to wait, if you know for certain you'll be able to have your fun at the end of it.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
So what happens every five years when the serial rapist/killer is let out and has to prove that he's still bad? Do the police allow them to rape/kill again before they get the point of "Okay, back in for another five." Five years isn't that long of a time to wait, if you know for certain you'll be able to have your fun at the end of it.

I don't think they actually let them out. They determine it while they are still in jail.

I love the show Justified.