I know the justifactions saying that it is merely an "eye for an eye", but at the end of the day is it really just simple murder?
You can justify it anyway you can (I've always been under the impression that if you need to continually justify an action you're probably having some doubt about it.)
What do the lot of you think?
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
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.
I don't think it's murder when it has been declared as an aforementioned consequence to a particular action equal to playing in live wires has been explained to us all. You could call capitol punishment suicide/murder. It can be murder for sure in some situations though.
Thats the purpose I was trying to make.
That it's a double standard in society.
Shakya's first post made sense to me.
__________________ "Every daring attempt to make a great change in existing conditions, every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, has been labeled Utopian."
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
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).
I'm pretty sure the actual definition of murder is "unlawful killing", so if it's lawful it can't be murder. It is definitely state sponsored killing though.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
There is a semantic case for using murder with a definition outside of that of the legal process in the country such a killing occurs. Numerous times have killings that were literally legal in the state they were committed been generally characterised as murder, and effectively this was correct.
As a result, capital punishment would not be considered murder by the state carrying it out. This does not necessarily rule out it being defined as murder by others, and there is no technical reason to rule that view out.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
"You've never had any TINY bit of sex, have you?"
BtVS
Last edited by Ushgarak on Nov 12th, 2010 at 07:08 PM
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.
Because the observer/historian rejects the legal system that carried out the executions. But so long as one thinks there is any case where execution can be justified then there is a difference between capital punishment and murder. If not then it seems like the argument becomes wholly semantic.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Well, then assume that Liberator is referring to a situation where someone thinking capital punishment it is murder automatically rejects the part of the legal system that allows it.
You can then answer his question without disallowing it on semantic grounds.
__________________
"We've got maybe seconds before Darth Rosenberg grinds everybody into Jawa burgers and not one of you buds has the midi-chlorians to stop her!"
So the question becomes "should capital punishment be legal?".
And, well, I don't know. Certainly I believe there are circumstances where killing a person is a justifiable act. On the other hand having an institution that is allowed to kill people opens doorways to serious abuse and when used cannot be overturned.
But if we take the question from the opening post rather than the title: "end of the day is it really just simple murder?"
The answer is clearly no, even without semantics. The processes used to decide if people will be executed are clear and deliberately lengthy.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 12th, 2010 04:12 PM
