Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The answer is clearly no, even without semantics. The processes used to decide if people will be executed are clear and deliberately lengthy.
so if I deliberatly, methodicly, ritualistically, and over a long period of time, kill someone, it isn't murder?
I think your argument kindof ends at "when the state does it, it isn't illegal"
Originally posted by Bardock42
By definition murder is illegal, legalized murder is an oxymoron
Yeah, this is the post I was going to make. Luckily, I scanned the thread, first, to see that someone stole my thunder.
It's not murder if it's legal...
However, and it's already been stated by Ush, one does not have to subscribe to the state definition of murder. Consider that laws are morals made official. By that, we can, easily without having to create an oxymoron, have a person or people deciding that a capital punishment killing, is in fact, murder, by their moral standards.
That's if the "almighty righteous and objective" law is considered to just be an official moral.
I think the discussion is better served in a "is it morally wrong to kill someone while defending yourself or your family"? I like that argument much better.
But, yes, whoever said that the thread should be changed to "Is capital punishment morally wrong?" is smart.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Death is the punishment for many actions why not some crimes? Not all crimes but ones that prove that a person will kill again. Not executing someone that you know will kill again is murder when they kill again isn't it? I don't believe in an eye for an eye I believe that a punishment should fit a crime fairly. Fearing death keeps people from doing certain things like sticking forks in the socket. I'm sure it can deter some people from "dabbling" in certain crimes. If you were trying to put a hit out on someone I'm sure them being a cop would affect the price thus decreasing a cops risk of this danger somewhat.
Originally posted by inimalist
so if I deliberatly, methodicly, ritualistically, and over a long period of time, kill someone, it isn't murder?I think your argument kindof ends at "when the state does it, it isn't illegal"
Heh, Dexter is the true hand of justice.
But seriously, I did sit here for a while and try to come up with a reasonable system that would differentiate murder and execution without allowing vigilante justice and not call on "because it's sanctioned by the state". Couldn't come up with anything. Certainly if Alice follows all the rules of the courts and then executes someone we would condemn her as a violent vigilante. But when Bob does it the only difference is that he has a different employer.
I think from a standpoint of consistency that is a pretty strong blow against the death penalty.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, Dexter is the true hand of justice.But seriously, I did sit here for a while and try to come up with a reasonable system that would differentiate murder and execution without allowing vigilante justice and not call on "because it's sanctioned by the state". Couldn't come up with anything. Certainly if Alice follows all the rules of the courts and then executes someone we would condemn her as a violent vigilante. But when Bob does it the only difference is that he has a different employer.
I think from a standpoint of consistency that is a pretty strong blow against the death penalty.
What if Alice belongs to a large community that has established it's own rules (but not official law) and this large community supported an independent investigation, tried the "bad guy" by a jury of his peers, and convicted him...resulting in a community established "death penalty" to be conducted by Alice. Alice would then be killing the man in such a way that it would be murder, but would still hold the "high" standards that inimalist named. These "vigilante" legal systems do exist in "independent" communities such as militias and Fundamental Mormons. Though, execution is never really heard of. Just sayin': they could do it on their own. The only difference, really, is Bob is doing it with an official law and Alice is doing it with some sort of "social contract" law established by a community (every bit as binding, to the community, as the real law, but not "official"😉.
That was an awful lot of quoting. It would seem that I hardly meant the words I actually typed out...which would be partially true.
Originally posted by King KandyAny number of possibilities could happen in the future but we should respond to what will most likely happen. Similar to when they evacuate a city. They will only do that to save lives and if nothing happens to the city the idea that you're possibly suggesting is to not evacuate in the future because we were wrong before. The saving of lives merits making those important decisions well.
What if you're sure that they'll kill again, but you're wrong?
Originally posted by The MISTER
Any number of possibilities could happen in the future but we should respond to what will most likely happen. Similar to when they evacuate a city. They will only do that to save lives and if nothing happens to the city the idea that you're possibly suggesting is to not evacuate in the future because we were wrong before. The saving of lives merits making those important decisions well.
Originally posted by King KandyI can't but can you prove that removing it would not cause it to rise. To be honest the death sentence will always be with us whether it's supported by law or not because I'd guess that we all know someone that if you were to break in their house they will gladly play judge jury and executioner. 😮💨
Can you prove that the death penalty ever brought the rate of crime down? That is simply not supported by the statistics.
To be honest I can recall being warned in advance about homes that will sentence burglars to death. I'd say it's a quality deterrent.
Originally posted by The MISTER
I can't but can you prove that removing it would not cause it to rise. To be honest the death sentence will always be with us whether it's supported by law or not because I'd guess that we all know someone that if you were to break in their house they will gladly play judge jury and executioner. 😮💨To be honest I can recall being warned in advance about homes that will sentence burglars to death. I'd say it's a quality deterrent.
[QUOTE=13075482]Originally posted by Bardock42
What Sym said is correct. You would like the impact of the word murder to apply to capital punishment because you disagree with it. I disagree with it, too, but for purposes of being linguistically clear it is not the same as murder. Rhetorically you can equate them if you like...people do it all the time with rape, though I find that distasteful (the rape thing, not the murder). [/QUOTE)
👆 📖
Originally posted by King Kandy
That's really not true at all. Very few 1st world countries will hand out the death penalty as much as the US, if at all... and it hasn't don a thing because the US has a higher crime rate as well. I really see zip to suggest we have any kind of edge in our justice system over say, Norway.
The UK has a higher crime rate.
Also, crime rates can vary based on the laws of each country. "Crime rate" can be very misleading.
For example, eliminate most (not all, but eliminate them enough to equate to our more liberal european counter-parts) of our drug crimes in the US and we can "bridge the gap" towards some of the other european nations.
Amend our property laws (which constitutes the majority of our crimes, by a huge margin) and our crime rate can go down significantly.
We are already ahead of several european countries in crime rates, already, despite having some retarded laws.
The US ain't so bad, really, when it comes to crime rates. In fact, there are Cities in the US that are just as "crime free" as any other European city you could wish to visit.
But, really, though, you are looking for a certain category and that is probably homocide rate, correct?
In which case, I would agree, the US is significantly up the chain, there. (Homocide is usually the reason for most executions, here in the US. Some states won't even execute someone unless they have commited a homocide, I believe.)
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Unfortunately, we (society) decides what is murder and what is not.
We have decided that killing in war is not murder.
We have decided that execution in not murder.
We have decided that killing to protect your life is not murder.As far the bigger picture is concerned; we are just animals on this planet. Death is natural. The problem with Capital Punishment is the fact that it diminishes our (the people who have to live after the person is executed) value of life. What do we want. I personally would like to have a world were we do not execute people.
We had also decided that killing a baby in a mothers womb is also not murder which it is.