Is Capital Punishment Legalised Murder?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Heh, Dexter is the true hand of justice.

god, I need to see this show apparently

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
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.

it is interesting to contrast this with the idea of the police as kidnappers.

See, most legal systems allow for people, as citizens, to restrain or incapacitate people who are breaking the law and threatening others. In an ideal system, the police essentially serve this purpose, and thus, it cannot be seen as kidnapping.

In the real world, where policing is highly racialized and there are idiotic laws (for instance, I would compare people arrented for drug laws to kidnapping) this might not hold, but conceptually, the police aren't simply kidnapping people.

but ya, thanks 😮

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I need to see this show apparently

You described it in a nutshell.

If you only killed people who were themselves murderers and you did more than you due diligence to be sure could you live with yourself?

And the answers is, yes, but probably only if you're addicted to murder. There's a great episode in the first season where he tries to get another serial killer to follow his code and is so convincing about the need to avoid killing the innocent that the other guy goes and commits suicide rather than live with it.

It's quite good the contrast between the Utilitarian appeal of Dexter's code and the scenes of him, ya know, torturing people to death is very striking.

Originally posted by inimalist
it is interesting to contrast this with the idea of the police as kidnappers.

See, most legal systems allow for people, as citizens, to restrain or incapacitate people who are breaking the law and threatening others. In an ideal system, the police essentially serve this purpose, and thus, it cannot be seen as kidnapping.

In the real world, where policing is highly racialized and there are idiotic laws (for instance, I would compare people arrented for drug laws to kidnapping) this might not hold, but conceptually, the police aren't simply kidnapping people.

but ya, thanks 😮

In America at least there is a well known bit of common law that allows a "citizen's arrest". In fact wikipedia makes it seem like a lot of nations recognize that detaining a person you believe to be dangerous is a reasonable right.

It is murder commited on behalf of the authorities, yes it is, but to be honest, I agree with it.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What kind of philosophy is that supposed to be? You can't just make unsupported statements true by saying "from a philosophical standpoint" or "logically".

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Not from a philosophical school, but from a personal philosophy.

Yeah, that much was obvious. I have no idea what he was on about.

I'm pretty sure King Kandy believes in absolute truths and morals and the like, or some shit like that.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure King Kandy believes in absolute truths and morals and the like, or some shit like that.

Originally posted by inimalist
god, I need to see this show apparently

it is interesting to contrast this with the idea of the police as kidnappers.

See, most legal systems allow for people, as citizens, to restrain or incapacitate people who are breaking the law and threatening others. In an ideal system, the police essentially serve this purpose, and thus, it cannot be seen as kidnapping.

In the real world, where policing is highly racialized and there are idiotic laws (for instance, I would compare people arrented for drug laws to kidnapping) this might not hold, but conceptually, the police aren't simply kidnapping people.

but ya, thanks 😮

the arrest is justified in our society by the goal of attaining justice for crimes committed. some of the criminals rights are suspended momentarily in the name of justice. the same imaginary line separates murder from execution. the act is accepted (by some) in the name of justice.

so why don't we let vigilantes carry out their own form of justice? well the easiest answer to that is that people are entitled their right to due process and a fair trial, and i'm guessing the government thinks for that to be consistent there is a need for centralization.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
. I personally would like to have a world were we do not execute people.

id kill this man, and id seriously think about killing ANYONE who WOULDN'T kill this man if it were their own wife/daughter/child/family...on general principles.

I believe that if you willfully murder ANYONE for any purposes OTHER than self/family preservation of life, your own human rights should be forefit. I believe capital punishment should exist but with a catch. A member of the victims family must agree to it, and they must commit the act themselves , to show their dedication and resolve to ridding the world of a dangerous ****, and for retributuion. Knowing that you're killing someone is murder, im not a murderer if my brakes fail in my car and an accident is the result. But if someone breaks into my house, despite their intentions, as a fathe my imediate thought is the worst, as it should be. This man wants to kill my wife, this man wants to rape my child, and thus i would murder him with a smile in the mirror afterwards at the service ive done my family and the world.

So, hell yeah capital punishment is murder (by the person throwing the switch only!!) and hell yeah it should exist. Kill 1 to save many, , its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

Yes should be.

I don't know, to me I don't think violence solves anything.

If you'd ask me, if you put violence into the system you're going to get violence back.

The old saying, "what goes around comes around."

Originally posted by Juk3n
I believe that if you willfully murder ANYONE for any purposes OTHER than self/family preservation of life, your own human rights should be forefit. I believe capital punishment should exist but with a catch. A member of the victims family must agree to it, and they must commit the act themselves , to show their dedication and resolve to ridding the world of a dangerous ****, and for retributuion.

So, uh, you want to encourage murderers to go after the victim's whole family?

Originally posted by Juk3n
So, hell yeah capital punishment is murder (by the person throwing the switch only!!) and hell yeah it should exist. Kill 1 to save many, , its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

Executions don't save anyone. There is no consistent evidence that they reduce rates of violent crime and prison breaks almost all consist of people walking away from minimum security prisons.

Originally posted by Juk3n
its a shame Batman doesn't think like that , how many more lives would he have saved?

you aren't too familiar with the character, are you?

EDIT: that would be like saying, "gee, I wish Spider-Man used his 'great power' a little more irresponsibly"

Thing is, using your powers to kill someone who's already killed thousands, and intends to and has the means to kill more, isn't irresponsible. It's... uber responsible. Like, it's the objectively right thing to do.

^of course, in practical terms that would only justitfy wiping out organizations such as governments, official and parallele armies, huge criminal networks, political parties and movements, large corporations, etc. as common criminal individuals dont pile up that body count.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Thing is, using your powers to kill someone who's already killed thousands, and intends to and has the means to kill more, isn't irresponsible. It's... uber responsible. Like, it's the objectively right thing to do.

unless one believes that killing is wrong

in which case, objectively, it is wrong to kill that person

Originally posted by Juk3n
I believe that if you willfully murder ANYONE for any purposes OTHER than self/family preservation of life, your own human rights should be forefit.

What do you mean "human rights"? What's your definition?

The UN Declaration? The Bible? Or your own view/twist?

Originally posted by inimalist
unless one believes that killing is wrong

in which case, objectively, it is wrong to kill that person

I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't know, especially in a comicbook universe. If a supervillain is about to set off a nuclear weapon isn't it less wrong to kill him and save thousands of people then to let him kill thousands of people.

The Japanese call that isatsu tasho: killing one so that many may live.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm pretty sure King Kandy believes in absolute truths and morals and the like, or some shit like that.