agreed. I would allow voluntary euthanasia for any life sentencee though, if i were king of the world.
^This^ My objection to the death penalty is the murdering of people, regardless of guilt. If the convict wants to take his own life, then that's his/her decision.
I know this is such a semantic thing to be arguing about, but death row convicts aren't murdered. Murder is the unlawful taking of a life with malice aforethought. That isn't an execution. There's a difference.
As you stated this is merely a matter of semantics and popular vote. Imo murder is intentionally taking a persons life without permission and as such includes state sanctioned executions.
I agree wholeheartedly. Its a great quote my friend, and from a very memorable scene, but this is not Middle Earth. Very well put, and appreciated. I feel the same way. I think that people who experience the murder of a loved one probably feel differently towards this method of punishment. Thankfully the closest thing I've ever experience to it (or anyone close to me) is a cousin of mine who was killed about 20 years ago. I never knew him well. He was known to everyone as a kind man, and very well liked. He was also a pastor in a local church. Sadly his life was taken by his gay lover whom he left his friends, faith and family to be with. I believe the man responsible was given 10 years.
Yes, Middle Earth was a world of clear black and whites, where evil and good were distinct and never met. It was easy to say who deserved to live and who deserved to die. Here, in this world, there's shades of gray and uncertainty and complexity. This world's dissimilarity from Middle Earth makes the quote more applicable here, not less.
You see 'shades of grey' and complexity. When dealing with murderers, serial rapists and psychopaths (the people I feel are deserving of this type of solution) I see only black. Their actions are evil, and it defines them. That is why they are where they are. If you want another bit of philosophy, here is one. "Judge a man not by his words, but by his actions" it can be rephrased a dozen different ways, but the truth is the same regardless. And before you pull out some biblical quote such as "Judge not, yet thee shall be judged", well that is what the justice system is there for. To judge those deemed by their actions to be judged and punished, and I feel the law should be given the power to treat zero respect for life with zero tolerance. But its fun discussing it with you.
You do realise psychopaths can't really help their behaviour? Except people are not always in control of their actions, can better their lives and all too often innocent people are executed. Except it only holds true for concious action taken by a rational mind. This idea is older than the bible and the justice system is human and therefore inherently flawed. I personally don't trust such a system with the death penalty. You're still completely glossing over people with mental problems and the fact that many innocent people have been executed as a result of the justice system. And completely ignoring the point that killing someone for committing murder is rather hypocritical even if you legalise it.
Yes I realize clinically ill have a diminished capacity to rationalize, however I do not feel that in anyway absolves them of the consequences of their actions, or should recieve special consideration. Take for instance the recent murder of a well know gay community member here in Halifax. He was brutally beaten by a man he had an altercation with. Story Here Based on the evidence, the attack was motivated because the man was drunk, homophobic, mentally unstable, and out on a day pass from the hospital. If he is unable to function outside the hospital. He even has a history of violence. Why was he released? He was a ticking time bomb, and a danger to the community. He was only out for 1 hour! So why should he be treated 'differently'? There are millions of mentally ill people are are absolutely, positively, no threat to anyone. Why are we coddling the violent ones capable of such acts? I see no reason. You see my view as extreme, and I see your view in the same way. However I would wager, that for all your protests of the value of life, you could not stand to be in the company of the individuals I am speaking of for 10 minutes. Hardened, violent, cruel, unstable repeat offenders.
Why should that not be taken in to account? This is: A. A failure of the justice system and hospital. B. An incident. C. You have failed to argue why he should be held accountable if he was motivated by mental delusions and a lack of mental restriction. Because those people can't help being that way, you're pushing them in the same group as people who commit premeditated murders. The difference is, with all due respect, that I have explained my view, I have not yet seen a rationalisation as to why people who have no control over their actions should be lumped in with people who are premeditated killers. You also haven't given a rational argument against the hypocrisy of killing someone for the crime of killing someone. This is a completely irrelevant appeal to emotion. How I feel about such persons is irrelevant, what matters is the morals and view of society I try to live by. I also cannot stand to be around homophobes and fundamentalist theists yet I do not support locking them up or treating them as second class citizens.
I think it is pretty relevant. I mean, when the government is deciding what is and is not a hate crime, the standard that it's judged against is by the community that is the most likely to be offended by it. So when someone is called a faggot, for example, they aren't going to go by a straight man's standard. I don't see why those victimized by an offender shouldn't have a say in the punishment that an offender receives.
Ehm no, a hate crime is when the victim is murdered due to hate from the perpetrator the victim, not the communities standards of hatred. Because it is a subjective judgement based on an appeal to emotion.
I'm against the death penalty for all the reasons Filip, Mogget and Linthras have stated. In my opinion it's never justified to take someones life, no matter how horrible a person is. And it's kind of the easy way out, I'd rather see someone be in jail for the rest of his life, with way too many time to overthink what he did.
Still no excuse... I think everybody knows it's wrong to kill someone else. If you weren't taught it, it's still common sense. I know psychopaths can't really help their behavior, but, killing someone is a bit too much...
There's a saying in legal circles, "Hard cases make bad law." It's true in ethics, too. I disagree with the posters who say it's always wrong to take a life, I think there are circumstances in which the death penalty might be entirely appropriate. I don't, on principle, object to the execution of high-ranking Nazis or serial killers. However, high-ranking Nazis and serial killers are a distinct minority among murderers and writing execution into the law as a punishment for murder generally is an excellent example of hard cases make bad laws. Most murderers become such as a result of years of societal conditioning, mental illness, and other factors which, while they may not justify the act, make it harder to judge them absolutely and completely evil. As such, even in a system free from the extreme biases of racism and classism (people of color and poor people are disproportionately given the death penalty), I would find it hard to justify the death penalty as being applicable in most cases. I would also recognize the extreme danger of executing an innocent man or woman, something that I find quite unconscionable. To quote again, "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
I was in a hurry to get to Wine of the Week and threw out an example of hate speech as a hate crime, which, although not the same thing obviously, is close enough for the point that I was making. A hate crime can go far beyond murder, by the way. (But hate speech, judged by the standard of the community most likely to be offended by it, often do make a huge difference in hate crime cases.) ..and what you're saying isn't? That isn't much of a rebuttal.
