If homicide is illegal and death is the penalty, what justifies the homicide when he dies?
- Thread starter senordesol
- Start date
To me, nothing justifies the death penalty.
Also, y'know, flesh out your posts more. Mods'll be on your ass and all.
Also, y'know, flesh out your posts more. Mods'll be on your ass and all.
Homicide is defined as (by google) 'The deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder.'
If it's legal to give someone the death sentence, then logically speaking there is no way it can be considered homicide.
Whether or not you agree with the death penalty is another matter altogether, of course.
If it's legal to give someone the death sentence, then logically speaking there is no way it can be considered homicide.
Whether or not you agree with the death penalty is another matter altogether, of course.
As mentioned, homicide has to be unlawful. Just killing someone isn't enough to get the death penalty, you have to kill someone and meet certain other criteria which aren't met by executing people.
Having said that, I'm against the death penalty for other reasons.
Having said that, I'm against the death penalty for other reasons.
Not really. The only difference is context, ultimately one person is still being killed by another.PrinceOfShapeir said:
Yeah, because one is killing someone, and the other is..... killing someone. Fail.PrinceOfShapeir said:
This thread again, yay!
Look: kidnapping somebody and unlawfully detaining them is illegal. And yet we imprison criminals. Stealing money is illegal, and yet your local government has the power to fine you for various misdemeanours.
So this faux-contradiction of "hurfa durfa, killing is illegal so why is the government allowed to do it" actually isn;t a contradiction at all. Context is everything.
There is killing in the context of murder: illegal.
There's killing in the context of self-defense: often permissable.
There's killing in the context of defending your country in times of war: legal and in fact highly respected.
There's killing as an act of mercy: euthanasia.
And there's killing as an act of law and justice: legal in some countries.
Simply put, it's not a contradiction. Whether the death penalty is morally justifiable or desirable is a different matter altogether, but don't mistake this for any kind of hypocrisy or logical contradiction.
Look: kidnapping somebody and unlawfully detaining them is illegal. And yet we imprison criminals. Stealing money is illegal, and yet your local government has the power to fine you for various misdemeanours.
So this faux-contradiction of "hurfa durfa, killing is illegal so why is the government allowed to do it" actually isn;t a contradiction at all. Context is everything.
There is killing in the context of murder: illegal.
There's killing in the context of self-defense: often permissable.
There's killing in the context of defending your country in times of war: legal and in fact highly respected.
There's killing as an act of mercy: euthanasia.
And there's killing as an act of law and justice: legal in some countries.
Simply put, it's not a contradiction. Whether the death penalty is morally justifiable or desirable is a different matter altogether, but don't mistake this for any kind of hypocrisy or logical contradiction.
Nooot really though. The key thing that is different is the motives behind the two. In the case of a murderer getting thedeath sentence, the criminal usually has it planned ahead and kills someone who is was essentially innocent. The intentional taking of someones life is generally viewed as one of the highest crimes you can commit. Following the idea that the punishment should match the crime, well you can follow it from there.Soggy Toast said:
So yea, they're both taking someone's life, but they are generally very different in motive and intent.
There is a certain hypocrisy going around among some of the death penalty supporters, which doesn't have much to do with death penalty itself, but their stance on other issues such as abortion or euthanasia.
I'm personally opposed to death penalty because I support punishment as protection and rehabilitation, but not punishment as retribution.
I'm personally opposed to death penalty because I support punishment as protection and rehabilitation, but not punishment as retribution.
[link]>http://rapgenius.com/Wu-tang-clan-da-mystery-of-chessboxin-lyrics#note-45244[/link] How is it a dumb question?krazykidd said:
So because it's in rap lyrics it must be the ultimate truth and cannot at all be stupid? because it certainly sounds like a stupid question, as Batou667 beautifully pointed out.Soggy Toast said:
The fact that you actually had to type it out and expect people to take it as something other than stupid, strikes me as odd.
No, nothing you said so far hints at this. Calling people names doesn't change that fact. You posted a question without elaborating at all and then stood by it's flawed premise only to later reveal it came from the lyrics from Wu Tang Clan. If you wanted people to not take it seriously, you should have stated it somehow before all that.Soggy Toast said:
I can't believe I am daring to get involved, but let me pose a question.
If someone is in danger of dying, a person is actively trying to kill them, would you say they are excused of killing the attacker in self defense? Most say yes.
Now, if the one being attacked fails to defend themself and dies, it suddenly becomes not okay to kill the attacker.
The only difference in the two scenarios is whether or not the victim dies. I just don't understand the many people who support what is essentially a death penalty for attempted murder, but not for the actual act of it. Many families of victims wonder why their loved one dies, while his/her killer goes to a place that allows him to get stronger, give shelter, and eat fairly decently compared to some people. Prison isn't exactly a nice place, but people are there for a reason and they're given way too much.
And before anyone brings up "But execution isn't self defense!" no, it isn't, but that is still indirectly excusing someone for killing another person just because the other person was weaker. I usually see the death penalty as the revenge of those unable to defend themselves, not the state just killing someone. I guess those famous words kind of apply, "You're going down with me!"
If someone is in danger of dying, a person is actively trying to kill them, would you say they are excused of killing the attacker in self defense? Most say yes.
Now, if the one being attacked fails to defend themself and dies, it suddenly becomes not okay to kill the attacker.
The only difference in the two scenarios is whether or not the victim dies. I just don't understand the many people who support what is essentially a death penalty for attempted murder, but not for the actual act of it. Many families of victims wonder why their loved one dies, while his/her killer goes to a place that allows him to get stronger, give shelter, and eat fairly decently compared to some people. Prison isn't exactly a nice place, but people are there for a reason and they're given way too much.
And before anyone brings up "But execution isn't self defense!" no, it isn't, but that is still indirectly excusing someone for killing another person just because the other person was weaker. I usually see the death penalty as the revenge of those unable to defend themselves, not the state just killing someone. I guess those famous words kind of apply, "You're going down with me!"