Father murders child over Xbox

[Pop]

What good reason is there for executing someone, outside of a your concept of "justice?"  How is "justice" not served in a lifetime without parole, but is served if you decide to execute someone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gee, you make it sound like all killing is equal, and all people are equal. But justice is equal to the equal and unequal to the unequal.

 

Only in the strictly utilitarian mindset are all people equal all the time. All other ethical theories, with the possible exception of perhaps thomism, do not give everyone a blanket of inalienable rights. Reasonable people can recognize that there is a fundamental difference between John Q Public and Slobodan Milosevic. One is a murderer, the other is not. We do not afford the same moral consideration to both. If I support capital punishment for guilty murderers, I'm not making some bull**** "I just know some people deserve to die" conclusion. That they deserve death has nothing to do with what I believe and everything to do with what they've done.

 

The system of law is based on a Contract system. All people are created equal, they all have the same rights by default. They all have a legitimate right and a claim not be harmed or molested. We have to recognize that others have a right not to be killed as well as ourselves But if we take these rights seriously, then we have to enforce them.

 

To this end, if we do not recognize someone's right to not be killed, and we kill him, we violate his right, we break the Contract. We were once protected from being killed. But in refusing another's protection from being killed, we revoke our own protection. When a man murders, he denies his own right to life. If he doesn't like it, if he would rather live, if others would rather him live, if he had a family, tough ****, should've thought of that before he threw it all away. He has removed himself from the realm of innocence. He suffers the consequences of his actions. He has violated one of the most very basic rules by which our society operates, and our society turns on him. If we value our society, we purge the murderer. There are no ifs or buts about it. We're not obligated to kill him, but we've got no obligation to keep him alive, either. Not anymore.

 

Of course, we must take intent into account. Accidental killing or homicidal negligence might not warrant such a harsh punishment, but it certainly deserve some kind of restitution. This is, I believe, one of those cases.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Pop

[Hell Kitty]

Even now, if we could have 100% guarantee that only the most vile of murderers would be executed, I'd probably be in favour of it.  Or at least not mind.

 

I feel exactly the same way.

 

People have often said to me that in cases like this one, when guilt is not in doubt, there is no reason not to execute. The problem is that people are found not guilty or guilty, not not guilty, guilty, or really truly undeniably guilty.

 

And as with the example you linked to before, it seems we can't be sure that the really truly undeniably guilty are really really truly undeniably guilty afterall.

[alanschu]

Gee, you make it sound like all killing is equal, and all people are equal. But justice is equal to the equal and unequal to the unequal.

 

No, I was asking a question.

 

 

Only in the strictly utilitarian mindset are all people equal all the time. All other ethical theories, with the possible exception of perhaps thomism, do not give everyone a blanket of inalienable rights. Reasonable people can recognize that there is a fundamental difference between John Q Public and Slobodan Milosevic. One is a murderer, the other is not. We do not afford the same moral consideration to both. If I support capital punishment for guilty murderers, I'm not making some bull**** "I just know some people deserve to die" conclusion. That they deserve death has nothing to do with what I believe and everything to do with what they've done.

 

Actually, it has everything to do with what you believe. You believe that executing them is a more effective form of justice than something like life without parole.

 

The system of law is based on a Contract system. All people are created equal, they all have the same rights by default. They all have a legitimate right and a claim not be harmed or molested. We have to recognize that others have a right not to be killed as well as ourselves But if we take these rights seriously, then we have to enforce them.

 

You've written quite a bit here, but said nothing. What have I said in previous posts goes against anything you just wrote here? I agree that people have a legitimate right and a claim not to be harmed or molested. I also recognize that others have the right to not be killed as well. You comment about how if we take these rights seriously, we have to enforce them. No kidding. I've never said otherwise.

 

 

To this end, if we do not recognize someone's right to not be killed, and we kill him, we violate his right, we break the Contract. We were once protected from being killed. But in refusing another's protection from being killed, we revoke our own protection. When a man murders, he denies his own right to life.

 

Based on what? You interpretation of the Social Contract?

 

 

If he doesn't like it, if he would rather live, if others would rather him live, if he had a family, tough ****, should've thought of that before he threw it all away. He has removed himself from the realm of innocence. He suffers the consequences of his actions. He has violated one of the most very basic rules by which our society operates, and our society turns on him. If we value our society, we purge the murderer. There are no ifs or buts about it. We're not obligated to kill him, but we've got no obligation to keep him alive, either. Not anymore.

 

It's funny that you criticized me for thinking all killing is equal, when you're doing the same here (and yes, I have read your part on intent below...more on that later though). It's simple, when a man murders, he denies the right to his own life. If he doesn't like it, tough bananas. He should have thought about that first. The thing is, to "purge" the murderer, you don't need to execute him. You certainly seem to be giving off the impression that all murderers are equal. But your assessment of murderers is too general, and too absolute. You say that it's "tough ****" because they should have thought about the consequences before they murdered someone. Ignoring the fact that murders are often crimes of circumstance, and in a situation when people are no longer rational. To say that the guy that murdered someone that he caught

 

As a final question, if a Person A murders Person B, and Person B is later found out to have been a murderer himself, would you let Person A off the hook? And more importantly, does the current judicial system? Because of our society's legal system does not see things that way, I question the validity of your interpretation of the Social Contract. Because the way you describe it, Person A should be free to go, because Person B's life was forfeit and he no longer had any right to his life.

 

 

Of course, we must take intent into account.  Accidental killing or homicidal negligence might not warrant such a harsh punishment, but it certainly deserve some kind of restitution. This is, I believe, one of those cases.

 

Well, accidental killings aren't murders, so I'm not sure what the point of bringing that into a discussion about capital punishment for capital crimes has to do with anything (unless you're discussing the isolated incident of the original post, which this thread has evolved quite a ways past, and I certainly wasn't referring to in the post you quoted). As for homicidal negligence and accidental killings deserving some sort of restitution, no kidding. You're just writing words, without contributing anything. No one here thinks that the guy in the first post should not receive some sort of punishment, nor have any of the people against the death penalty felt that murderers (since the topic shifted more to the death penalty) should avoid any type of restitution. Saying that they should be punished is just stating the obvious.

 

 

Now back to intent, obviously intent has to be taken into account (another statement of the obvious). Unfortunately, our judicial system does not punish people because they committed a crime. They punish people because evidence leads to "proof" that they committed the crime. Intent is exactly the same. Concluding intent is based upon interpretation. Interpretation made by falliable people. People that get emotional, irrational, fatigued. People that have latent biases and even prejudices. And sometimes, even malicious people seeking personal gain at the expense of others. In other words, determining intent is not an easy thing to do.

 

And despite all you've said in your recent post, you still haven't provided me with a good reason why execution serves justice better than life without parole. All you said was a bunch of philosophy about how you feel the world should be. So, I'll ask again: What good reason is there for executing someone, rather than putting them in prison for life without parole? I think it's a straight forward question personally.

 

 

And you have mentioned Slobodan Milosevic (which I'm not sure necessarily parallels well to a discussion about capital punishment and domestic law, though I assume you mention him as an example of someone that you can safely feel deserves to die) a couple of times now. I have no doubt that he probably would have received the death penalty (had he not died prior to sentencing). You talk about how there's a difference between him an John Q Public, because he's a murderer and John Q Public isn't. Is there any difference though, between John Spenkelink and Milosevic? A man that commits mass genocide, and a petty criminal that happened to kill a man.

 

And finally, to go back to my post that you quoted, what purpose would executing a man that "deserves to die" like Milosevic have? Killing him does not undo the damage that he has done. I'm going to assume he probably wouldn't have much opportunity to commit genocide in the future. How much difference in closure would their really be. I can see some initial public outcry, but how many people even know someone like Charles Manson (whom I feel would be executed today) is even still alive. Is there a significant number of people that were affected by the actions of his family that still want him dead? Would people still be clamouring for the life of Milosevic in 20 years if he was put in prison for life without parole? Maybe they do. I don't know. I am sketpical as to whether or not it offers significant long term benefits to the victims if the criminal is executed rather than put in prison and forgotten about. I doubt I'll really ever be able to find evidence one way or the other.

Edited December 20, 2006 by alanschu

[thepixiesrock]

No one here thinks that the guy in the first post should not receive some sort of punishment,

 

 

I disagree. The guy in the first post doesn't deserve any punishment. He's been through enough what with his X-Box 360 almost breaking. You all need to show a little more respect for people ad their belongings.

[ramza]

Hey, try to prove me wrong then... I am not american, and my sources may be inaccurate, but until this is proven to be true, I have the right to stick to my opinions.

 

What? YOU are the one making statements of fact about American law. Since when do I have to prove you wrong? YOU have to prove that your facts are correct, since YOU are the one who is spouting them.

 

...You dont sound any more credible than me by stating that you live in California... Most people are ignorant about their own country's legal system anyway ...

 

Oh, the irony. I have merely lived here my whole life, but I am ignorant about the laws that govern me, whereas you, who do not live here, are apparently not ignorant about the laws that govern me. What's more, you feel obliged to spout

arrogant idiocies, challenging me to prove you wrong rather than supporting your "facts" with sources.

 

...(not that I criticize them for that, but one has to be careful when talking about laws and such, if he/she doesn't have much knowledge in that field)...

 

ROFL. Again, oh the irony. I guess your own comment doesn't apply to you, hmmmmm?

 

... if you dont like europe, just say so... I dont mind, its just your opinion...

 

You are the one who is being arrogant and rude, sir, not I. I made no comment whatsoever about Europe, since I do not even know what country you are from. You are the one "teasing" and taunting Americans, even going so far as to claim you had even gotten the reaction you had hoped for. THAT, young man, is rude. At least I was raised that it was rude to taunt people and insult their ethnicity. I have no idea what kind of manners you were raised with.

 

If you were trying to protect human lives as much as you were trying to protect your country's reputation, things would be better... people just dont know their priorities...game over...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice conclusion. Jump there often? You know absolutely nothing about me or my views on capital punishment other than the fact that I happen to be an American living in California. Guess all of us yanks are alike, huh? LOL. Conclusion-jumping is also rude.

 

Have a nice day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Since you were asking for proof, I have made some quick research. You will find all the relevant quotes and links at the end of my post. Indeed, Bush did not reintroduce the death penalty (my mistake) but was the guy who made the most frequent use of the death penalty (I made a confusion between those two). This is, in a sense, even worse. Making a very strict application of the capital punishment doesn

Edited December 20, 2006 by ramza

[Sand]

If the criminal repeats the crime then he or she needs to be removed from society. The revolving door prison needs to end. The purpose of government is to protect and govern law abiding citizens. Those who break the law needs to be punished and punished severely. It isn't about teaching prisoners or sending them to rehab. It is about punishing the criminal, not supporting the criminal. It is the fault of the criminal who commits the crime not the victim nor the government.

[ramza]

still, if one attaches importance to human rights, he/she can only find intolerable the idea of suppressing a human life under any circumstance. I am just sad to see how many of you support the capital punishment without second thoughts. We are at a time in Human History in which we must start learning from the error of the past and start looking at new, more humane, practices and methods. It is unworthy of people who claim to live in a developed and civilised world, to support such a thing as capital punishment. It is just a way for society to easily erase its own mistakes and a way to divert its sight from the truth. People and Governments are satisfied with the most easy solution instead of thinking of new ways to reduce criminality. Moreover, if we claim to be civilised, we ought to be merciful and act in productive manner instead of anwering to a crime, by committing another crime... this is... just barbaric... The most basic right of a human person is to live. Noone has the right to remove this right, except from God. Concerning the criminal who has killed an innocent person, he should be punished in an approriate way without recreating what he has done.

[Volourn]

God is a scumbag who has MASS MURDERED an untold amount of people, and then excuse dhis behaviour by claiming they were evil or 'sinful'. His opinion is worthless to me.

 

God is supposedly our 'creator' and/or 'parent'; we don't approve of parents murdering their children, and I don't think a God who professes to love 'everyone' should be excused simple because he's a 'devine being'.

 

And, before you accuse me of trolling and being a bigot; I just like to point out you are the one who made this an issue of god basically trolling and insulting all non religous people orf people like me who believe (a) God exists but choose for moral reasons not to follow him. I am not bigot as I don't hate Christians; I just dissaprove of mass killing whether a human or diety commits it.

 

If you are gonna use God to demonize people. You better believe those people should likely point that God is far from perfect no matter how he brags otherwise.

 

I will not worship or follow any God who approves of mass murder while hypocritically condemns those who commit the same crimes. Nor will I be condemned by those who feel God is above it.

 

Parents shouldn't be allowed to murder their children for ANY reason.

[Fionavar]

Let's try not to throw words at one another in a less than Happy Holidays sort of way ...

 

/hopeful calming moment in the sandbox

[astr0creep]

Parents  shouldn't be allowed to murder their children for ANY reason.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What if you are the parent of Freddy Kruger?

 

 

 

 

Happy Holy days everyone! (w00t)

[Volourn]

Okay. Sorry;but the throwing God into ana rgument to try to settle it annoys me.

 

BVut, I love Christmas so I'll respect your wishes for peace.

 

Happy Christmas Everyone!

 

 

P.S. I'm not being sarcasting. I'll just ignore that topic. <>

 

P.S.S. Murder is immoral, and there should be some suytable punishment that fits the type of heinous crime that it is.

 

P.S.S. There are always exemptions to the rules, Astro.

Edited December 20, 2006 by Volourn

[ramza]

God is a scumbag who has MASS MURDERED an untold amount of people, and then excuse dhis behaviour by claiming they were evil or 'sinful'. His opinion is worthless to me.

 

God is supposedly our 'creator' and/or 'parent'; we don't approve of parents murdering their children, and I don't think a God who professes to love 'everyone' should be excused simple because he's a 'devine being'.

 

And, before you accuse me of trolling and being a bigot; I just like to point out you are the one who made this an issue of god basically trolling and insulting all non religous people orf people like me who believe (a) God exists but choose for moral reasons not to follow him. I am not bigot as I don't hate Christians; I just dissaprove of mass killing whether a human or diety commits it.

 

If you are gonna use God to demonize people. You better believe those people should likely point that God is far from perfect no matter how he brags otherwise.

 

I will not worship or follow any God who approves of mass murder while hypocritically condemns those who commit the same crimes. Nor will I be condemned by those who feel God is above it.

 

Parents  shouldn't be allowed to murder their children for ANY reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

LOL! As energetic as ever!

 

Seriously, I just made a small and simple reference to God to reflect my own opinion. However, there is no need to talk about God in an issue like the capital punishment. The fact that noone has the right to decide about another's right to live is almost universally accepted in any democratic societies that adhere to the values of human rights, no matter of religion. You are the one who made a big issue about this...

 

Anyway, you are just making a poor interpretation of what God and Religion is. First of all, we do no have the typical parent-child relationship with God (depending on your view). If you do believe in God, there is life after death, so death is not that tragic. It is more tragic for the people who care for you. Still, there are many interpretations about why one has to die (a challenge for the family in order to become better persons, etc). I wont get into that though since this isnt our topic.

 

All the mass murder that has been done all these centuries have been supposedly made in the name of God, but were they reflecting the will of God or were they just reflecting the corrupted vision of a few leaders, that believed they were serving God (or just pretended to )?

 

Your arguments are thus null and void... sorry, pal...

[Fionavar]

Ah well I guess ramza get no perty gold star today ... thanks for playing ... time to clean up the sand spilled ...