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
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.