Delta1212 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Technically it is the death penalty without trial, but yeah. It is irrelevant. Technically it isn't, because it's not a penalty. It's not court mandated or even carried out by the state. Now, if you view it as murder, you could describe it as legal murder, but that is quite a different thing than capital punishment. If you want to be technical about it.
Raider5678 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Technically it isn't, because it's not a penalty. It's not court mandated or even carried out by the state. Now, if you view it as murder, you could describe it as legal murder, but that is quite a different thing than capital punishment. If you want to be technical about it. Legal Murder.
Delta1212 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Legal Murder. Which is not the same thing as capital punishment. (Well, I suppose you could describe capital punishment as a subset thereof, but the equivalence doesn't go in both directions)
zapatos Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Legal Murder.Those words are mutually exclusive. If it's legal, it is not murder.
Raider5678 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Those words are mutually exclusive. If it's legal, it is not murder. Fair enough. A Legal Execution of an innocent person.
Delta1212 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Those words are mutually exclusive. If it's legal, it is not murder. Eh, from a rhetorical perspective, I think there is a case for the terms not being mutually exclusive. If you're defining murder as a crime, then yes. If you're talking about murder as being the unethical taking of a human life, then you can talk about things that should, from an ethical perspective, be considered murder, but may or may not be from a legal perspective. Taking a strictly legalistic view of the definition of murder hampers the ability to discuss that kind of issue in terms that are not overly convoluted. Legal murder and the legal unethical taking of life communicate pretty much the same idea, but one of them is a bit cumbersome to use.
zapatos Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 Fair enough. A Legal Execution of an innocent person.We are talking specifically about abortion, right (just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding)? If so, and at the risk of taking this thread completely off topic, a fetus is not legally considered a 'person'. Eh, from a rhetorical perspective, I think there is a case for the terms not being mutually exclusive.Okay, that's fair. I feel like I'm starting to drive this discussion off course. My apologies.
Raider5678 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 We are talking specifically about abortion, right (just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding)? If so, and at the risk of taking this thread completely off topic, a fetus is not legally considered a 'person'. Like the a 3 month old isn't a person because it can't think with advanced logic argument? A fetus, will inevitably become a person if nothing happens to it. So by aborting a fetus, you aborted a baby. By aborting a baby you aborted a child. By aborting a child you killed an adult. Killing an adult is murder. How is killing a fetus not? I did make a thread about this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100526-is-abortion-ethical/
Endy0816 Posted November 7, 2016 Posted November 7, 2016 That is not the case. Most abortions occur by themselves. 1
MonDie Posted January 22, 2017 Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) It might be somewhat off-topic except regarding the problem of criminals escaping prison, but I have been pondering some of the limitations of the standard punishment system that expresses severity of sentence as length of sentence. I think this system assumes that punishment is the only solution. The sentence should be intended to prevent future offenses, especially with offenders whose crimes can be predicted. Furthermore, it should be as effective as possible while only being as restrictive as we can justify per their offense. For example, in the case of a pedophile who commits a very mild offense but in doing so reveals his potential, this could involve tracking, libido reduction, et cetera. This would still be a life-sentence like the death penalty, but it could be cheaper and it lets us reverse false convictions. Come to think of it, this would make false convictions a near non-problem. Since the punishment is distributed over a longer period of time, less of the punishment will have occurred by the time innocence is discovered. It's actually the opposite of the death penalty in that way. Edited January 22, 2017 by MonDie 1
Ten oz Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 A quick look as the various nations around the world with the Death Penalty vs one without show that the death penalty doesn't reduce crime. The only measurable benefit of it is in the gratification it provides those who support it. Executions, top ten countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United States, Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam,and Lybia.
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 The only measurable benefit of it is in the gratification it provides those who support it. Indeed, any culture that promotes, or enjoys the idea of, vengeance will have little regard for, the idea of, justice or rehabilitation.
StringJunky Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 This thread is going around in circles and people are just repeating what's already been said. <Yawns> Indeed, any culture that promotes, or enjoys the idea of, vengeance will have little regard for, the idea of, justice or rehabilitation. If a person is eligible to be put to death then the notion of rehabilitation is moot.
Ten oz Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 This thread is going around in circles and people are just repeating what's already been said. <Yawns> If a person is eligible to be put to death then the notion of rehabilitation is moot. Yes, this subject typically goes in circles. The death penalty is something that many countries use and for which there is strong support for. However it cannot empirically be proven beneficial for any society that uses it. In my opinion there is more evidence that suggests it is bad for society however every society is its own microcosm so endless debate can be drawn since the variables between societies are many. Ultimately some people supporty it and other do not. Those who dosupport it tend to argue from an emotional positions claiming the death penalty provides families with a sense of justice, is a deterrent, or otherwise deserved. Those who do not support it argue the contradiction of killing someone because killing is wrong and the ethics of empowering ones gov't to kills people who are detained.
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 This thread is going around in circles and people are just repeating what's already been said. <Yawns> If a person is eligible to be put to death then the notion of rehabilitation is moot. How is anyone eligible to be put to death? Any society that would be happy to see their mother/family/friend in a hangman's noose, will fail to see the value of justice; only then is rehabilitation moot.
StringJunky Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 How is anyone eligible to be put to death? Any society that would be happy to see their mother/family/friend in a hangman's noose, will fail to see the value of justice; only then is rehabilitation moot. If they meet the criteria of a juridisdiction. That is your assertion.
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Vengeance advocates death, understanding advocates justice.
StringJunky Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) Vengeance advocates death, understanding advocates justice. ... which may advocate death. I think we need a thread on what justice is and what it means in different cultures. Edited January 23, 2017 by StringJunky
StringJunky Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 Which leads to peace? What's peace got to do with it? Yes, this subject typically goes in circles. The death penalty is something that many countries use and for which there is strong support for. However it cannot empirically be proven beneficial for any society that uses it. In my opinion there is more evidence that suggests it is bad for society however every society is its own microcosm so endless debate can be drawn since the variables between societies are many. Ultimately some people supporty it and other do not. Those who dosupport it tend to argue from an emotional positions claiming the death penalty provides families with a sense of justice, is a deterrent, or otherwise deserved. Those who do not support it argue the contradiction of killing someone because killing is wrong and the ethics of empowering ones gov't to kills people who are detained. The conversation has reached a point of impasse, which is ok because that's the nature of this beast.
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 What's peace got to do with it? If only you could ask Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi.
StringJunky Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) If only you could ask Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Gandhi. You are misapplying a global notion to a local situation. edited Edited January 23, 2017 by StringJunky
dimreepr Posted January 23, 2017 Posted January 23, 2017 You are misapplying a global notion to a local one. How?
RiceAWay Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 Like the a 3 month old isn't a person because it can't think with advanced logic argument? A fetus, will inevitably become a person if nothing happens to it. So by aborting a fetus, you aborted a baby. By aborting a baby you aborted a child. By aborting a child you killed an adult. Killing an adult is murder. How is killing a fetus not? I did make a thread about this: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100526-is-abortion-ethical/ I am in complete agreement with you and have a little experience that horrifies me with abortions. Approved by the SAME people that find the ultimate punishment for the worst offenders to be unethical. -1
dimreepr Posted January 24, 2017 Posted January 24, 2017 (edited) Approved by the SAME people that find the ultimate punishment for the worst offenders to be unethical. What about us that doesn't approve of the ultimate punishment but does agree with a woman's right to make her own decisions and lead her own life? Edited January 24, 2017 by dimreepr
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now