The Majestic Metal Wizard
Once could expand on this to have a more inclusive definition of when it is right or wring to kill someone - something along the lines of:Originally Posted by Banditbandit
It is wrong to kill someone, unless they pose an immediate and quantifiable threat to the lives of innocent persons.
This would also allow for things such as Wars to be fought without violating the the rule.
Physics; Thou art a cruel, heartless Bitch-of-a-Mistress
Anorak
I do not argue anything. I was pointing out the flaw in your premise.
The individual societies sets out rules and punishments that they consider appropriate.
You seem to be confusing justice vs what you deem to be just.
It has everything to do with rights whether the right of an individual you choses to live outside those rules rights outweigh the rights of a whole society.
The rules of society implies consequences for those that choose not to, these are written as laws, individual societies decide what rules they will have. What punishments will be metered out.
Your last statement implies your thinking is that everyone should just accommodate your own thoughts on what is acceptable.
A societies rules are just that, A rules of the society are those that they choose,that clearly points out what is acceptable and what is not also what the ramifications are for those that choose to go against them.
If individuals don't wish to be part of society or obey its rules it is very unlikely that they would accommodate your own line of reasoning on what the rules should be.
As most societies do not hold hostage those wanting to leave, because they don't want to be part of them. It is a choice individuals make, Just as whether to obey those societies rules or not.
The NZ prison population is only eq to 0.25% of the population. Which is quite telling.
Of those only 9% are there for Homicide related offences.
Which is 0.22% of the population.
If you peruse this breakdown from US figures you will see how these individual states decide what level is deemed to be a capital crime.
it is not simply enough just to murder someone.
It generally requires additional factors as well before someone is sentenced to death.
Texas who is at seems has the highest proportion of those sentenced to death use this factors here to decide where an offence deemed to be fitting of a death penalty. (Capital homicide)
As you see it is not enough to just Murder someone.
Sec. 19.02. MURDER. (a) In this section:
(1) "Adequate cause" means cause that would commonly produce a degree of anger, rage, resentment, or terror in a person of ordinary temper, sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection.
(2) "Sudden passion" means passion directly caused by and arising out of provocation by the individual killed or another acting with the person killed which passion arises at the time of the offense and is not solely the result of former provocation.
(b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or
(3) commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he caused the death under the immediate influence of sudden passion arising from an adequate cause. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
Sec. 19.03. CAPITAL MURDER. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under Section 19.02(b)(1) and:
(1) the person murders a peace officer or fireman who is acting in the lawful discharge of an official duty and who the person knows is a peace officer or fireman;
(2) the person intentionally commits the murder in the course of committing or attempting to commit kidnapping, burglary, robbery, aggravated sexual assault, arson, obstruction or retaliation, or terroristic threat under Section 22.07(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), or (6);
(3) the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;
(4) the person commits the murder while escaping or attempting to escape from a penal institution;
(5) the person, while incarcerated in a penal institution, murders another:
(A) who is employed in the operation of the penal institution; or
(B) with the intent to establish, maintain, or participate in a combination or in the profits of a combination;
(6) the person:
(A) while incarcerated for an offense under this section or Section 19.02, murders another; or
(B) while serving a sentence of life imprisonment or a term of 99 years for an offense under Section 20.04, 22.021, or 29.03, murders another;
(7) the person murders more than one person:
(A) during the same criminal transaction; or
(B) during different criminal transactions but the murders are committed pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct;
(8) the person murders an individual under 10 years of age; or
(9) the person murders another person in retaliation for or on account of the service or status of the other person as a judge or justice of the supreme court, the court of criminal appeals, a court of appeals, a district court, a criminal district court, a constitutional county court, a statutory county court, a justice court, or a municipal court.
(b) An offense under this section is a capital felony.
(c) If the jury or, when authorized by law, the judge does not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an offense under this section, he may be convicted of murder or of any other lesser included offense.
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/PE.19.htm
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
He certainly wasn't being monitored because he was on home D.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Hardcore Biker
Executing convicted murderers where the evidence is incontrovertible (we are NOT talking about convictions such as the Thomas/Crewe murders), is not killing people by state sanctioned violence. It's eradication of vermin/pest control.
Society is not saying it is wrong to kill people. We as a society is saying it is wrong to murder people.
If you as an individual murder people for personal / sexual / financial or other gratification, we as a society believe the appropriate punishment is that you die. Not only, but also, to protect your future victims.
Anarchic Wild Child
I am not arguing justice or what I deem to be just - I am arguing from ethics/morals.
Yes - I accept all that. I certainly accept the social construction of the rules ...It has everything to do with rights whether the right of an individual you choses to live outside those rules rights outweigh the rights of a whole society.
The rules of society implies consequences for those that choose not to, these are written as laws, individual societies decide what rules they will have. What punishments will be metered out.
But it is generally accepted that the "rules" reflect the morality of that society. If the rules are not based on morality and ethics, then they have no basis other than social preference and are arbitrary
No - quite the opposite. I accept that society has rules and if I get caught breaking them then I accept that I will be punished by society ... how much I am prepared to accept the consequences of illegal actions depends on whether I carry them out or not ...Your last statement implies your thinking is that everyone should just accommodate your own thoughts on what is acceptable.
I accept society has rules - I just refuse to follow them because they are rules. I follow them, or not, depending on how they agree or conflict with my own ethics and morality.
(And I would also point out that none of what I have written reflects my personal position on the death penalty for serious crimes )
Agreed ... the rules are usually based on a shared ethics/morality.A societies rules are just that, A rules of the society are those that they choose,that clearly points out what is acceptable and what is not also what the ramifications are for those that choose to go against them.
Exactly. Sort of .. I think I agree but your meaning is a little obscured ...If individuals don't wish to be part of society or obey its rules it is very unlikely that they would accommodate your own line of reasoning on what the rules should be.
As most societies do not hold hostage those wanting to leave, because they don't want to be part of them. It is a choice individuals make, Just as whether to obey those societies rules or not.
Can you make your point a little clearer?The NZ prison population is only eq to 0.25% of the population. Which is quite telling.
Of those only 9% are there for Homicide related offences.
Which is 0.22% of the population.
Of course ...As you see it is not enough to just Murder someone.
But my point remains, if based on an ethic that states it is wrong to kill people ("murder" being a subset of "killing") then society is acting inconsistently by putting to death people it convicts of killing people.
Amusing - but still acting inconsistently ...
"Murder" is a subset of "killing people" ... Yes - I get that - murder is wrong because it is wrong to kill people .. Executing the murderer is still acting inconsistently ...Society is not saying it is wrong to kill people. We as a society is saying it is wrong to murder people.
I'm sorry - but our society does NOT believe the appropriate punishment is that you die.If you as an individual murder people for personal / sexual / financial or other gratification, we as a society believe the appropriate punishment is that you die. Not only, but also, to protect your future victims.
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Forum whore
Yep, in a nutshell.
Anorak
Yes but remember morals refer to what you believe is right where more often ethics are what society deems to be the correct course of action considering the circumstances
As above more a reflection of the ethics.
This is your choice
The point I was making is what tiny part of the population that does not accept societies rules regarding conduct that this applies to.
No it is based on your interpretation of morality, this is what you feel, I should point out a lot of societies share your view but and this is the big but, they are very rarely given the opportunity to actually vote on it.
I wonder If individuals were asked such as in the Blessie Gotingco case what the fair outcome is I wonder what the majority would say given the circumstances of this case.
How so.......
No in my opinion the circumstances are entirely different. Sentencing someone to death due to account of heinous crimes they committed, So to protect a community is fundamentally different than killing someone because you wish too.
Using your definition that means euthanasia is also murder.
Also any meat animal that feeds you is also murdered.....
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Just faidin away!
True!
and
He who currently shall be seen but not named is an ideal candidate for capital punishment IMHO! -
Anarchic Wild Child
Hmmmm ... I'm not arguing from my own ethics ... but rather that society decrees it is wrong to kill ...
A small percentage - but morals/ethics are not democratic ... two of the major ethical systems are religious .. so a god or gods hands out the rules ... three of them depend on ontology - and are derived from creation stories ...The point I was making is what tiny part of the population that does not accept societies rules regarding conduct that this applies to.
Ethics are, supposedly, a higher value than democracy can provide.
As I have said - I have not stated my own views - I'm just arguing from a moral/ethical standpoint. How can you know that a lot of societies share my view??No it is based on your interpretation of morality, this is what you feel, I should point out a lot of societies share your view but and this is the big but, they are very rarely given the opportunity to actually vote on it.
I think you might be surprised .. but then again, so might I.I wonder If individuals were asked such as in the Blessie Gotingco case what the fair outcome is I wonder what the majority would say given the circumstances of this case.
Yes ... does that make it a more ethical action ???No in my opinion the circumstances are entirely different. Sentencing someone to death due to account of heinous crimes they committed, So to protect a community is fundamentally different than killing someone because you wish too.
Yes. The current rules of our society make it murder .. or at least assisted suicide - both illegal ...Using your definition that means euthanasia is also murder.
No - that's too big a leap ...Also any meat animal that feeds you is also murdered.....
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Anorak
There is murder and there're is sentencing someone to death there is also manslaughter.
Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based.
Morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based.
Ethics are principles of right conduct.
Ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Nana
If I was convicted of murder:
& I was innocent I would feel aggrieved with either outcome.
& I was guilty I would think less of society for not doing the necessary if I was not to be removed from the gene pool.
& I was guilty but felt justified in my action I would thank society for its mercy if I got to live long enough to go outside again. But if there was no possibility of parole, real term of your natural life stuff, I'd rather the noose.
Pretty easy for me to say that, I don't currently face that dilemma but I believe any term of longer that 25 years is less humane than a needle in the arm.
Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.
Anarchic Wild Child
Where do your definitions come from? I certainly do not share them ...
Oh yeah .. and three times I have given you the opening to ask "What do you think? What is your opinion?" But you have missed them all ...
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Anorak
Have you never considered that these two words although they often share a similar meaning, actually refer to two slightly different things.
Mull it over a bit.........
As for the question it depends on an individuals morals, but the consensus in the counties that use it (or not) as a sentence determines the course of action they choose to be ethical.
(I am obliviously referring to the ones that are not ruled by dictatorships though)
Kinky is using a feather. Perverted is using the whole chicken
Hardcore Biker
... but the people who assume the moral high ground, by stating that killing under all circumstances is wrong, generally don't have to pay the cost. Recidivist murderers spared the death penalty generally do not target those who campaign against the death penalty...
This is a very thoughtful analysis
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/fi...punishment.pdf
As one of the authors suggests: if the series of nonideological studies done in the last decade are right, then having a death penalty spares between 10 and 24 innocent victims of murder. How can we abandon indisputably innocent men, women, and children to homicide?
Forum whore
Thank you - a worth wile piece ...
[url
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks