If homicide is illegal and death is the penalty, what justifies the homicide when he dies?

If murdering ends in death, the murderer negates himself by his own act.

To me, nothing justifies the death penalty.

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.

Yeah, execution and murder are two different things. Fail.

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.

PrinceOfShapeir:
Yeah, execution and murder are two different things. Fail.

Not really. The only difference is context, ultimately one person is still being killed by another.

Oh, yay. Another death penalty thread.

image

PrinceOfShapeir:
Yeah, execution and murder are two different things. Fail.

Yeah, because one is killing someone, and the other is..... killing someone. Fail.

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.

Soggy Toast:

PrinceOfShapeir:
Yeah, execution and murder are two different things. Fail.

Yeah, because one is killing someone, and the other is..... killing someone. Fail.

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.

So yea, they're both taking someone's life, but they are generally very different in motive and intent.

Batou667:
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.

THIS.

I personally don't agree with the death penalty, but it's pretty freaking obvious that there's no hypocrisy going. It only appears to be hypocrisy when people refuse to look at the details. If people want to argue against the death penalty they should come up with a real argument, not this nonsense -__-

I guess nobody listens to rap music.

Soggy Toast:
I guess nobody listens to rap music.

Please don't blame your dumb question on rap music .

Batou667:
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.

This . I mean really , obviously . Take two seconds to think about it and you will get the same answer .

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.

krazykidd:

Soggy Toast:
I guess nobody listens to rap music.

Please don't blame your dumb question on rap music .

>http://rapgenius.com/Wu-tang-clan-da-mystery-of-chessboxin-lyrics#note-45244 How is it a dumb question?

Soggy Toast:

krazykidd:

Soggy Toast:
I guess nobody listens to rap music.

Please don't blame your dumb question on rap music .

>http://rapgenius.com/Wu-tang-clan-da-mystery-of-chessboxin-lyrics#note-45244 How is it a dumb question?

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.

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.

Soggy Toast:

DoPo:

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.

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.

It wasn't meant to be serious, but I guess you're just too dumb to realize that.

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.

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!"

DoPo:
[quote="Soggy Toast" post="18.374815.14532762"]

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.

Yeah, because I didn't need to hint anything. You're just overanalyzing things, dude. You shouldn't do that, it's unhealthy.

Soggy Toast:

PrinceOfShapeir:
Yeah, execution and murder are two different things. Fail.

Yeah, because one is killing someone, and the other is..... killing someone. Fail.

The fail is on your part. Both are killing, but they aren't the same, or do you consider deliberate murder and self defense the same? Circumstances matter.

I'm not pro death penalty, but that's because I don't trust them not to accidentally kill an innocent person. The concept however is fine. If you kill someone deliberately and with malice we need to remove you from society to protect society. It's probably more humane, and certainly cheaper and safer, to kill you instead of locking you up for 80 years.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked