|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 04/26/2002 : 18:51:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokydreamer> The state makes the definitions.
No, the state makes the laws. So you are saying that any killing is murder unless the person being killed has committed a "crime against humanity"? Who decides what that is?
quote:
How can you even have such an odd contradiction as murder AND lawful, in the same sentence?
Ask Merriam-Webster.
quote:
What does this accomplish?
It removes a threat and an unnecessary burden on society.
quote:
Is it not the utmost barbarism to put a price on a human life?
We do this all the time. If we spend x more money on y, z less people will die. Take your pick what y is, from automobile safety, to pharmaceuticals, to just about every other aspect of our lives.
quote:
Soldiers are killers. Do you want them executed, too?
Don't be ridiculous.
quote:
Being strongly opposed to murder of any kind, I think the only exception I can think of, are crimes against humanity. Government leaders ordering massacres and ethnic cleansings. Milosovic, Hitler, who-ever ordered the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Stalin I would not and will not stand up for.
A totally arbitrary distinction. I happen to think that if a person kills someone on the street for their purse, that they are just as deserving of death as someone who orders the deaths of people from a governmental position (except in warfare).
If killing more people is deserving of a stiffer penalty than killing less, aren't you placing a certain value on human life?
Why is "cold blooded murder" justified in Milosevic's case? He's not killing people anymore, what does his death accomplish?
(by the way, speaking of contradictions, you can't be "opposed to murder of any kind", and define execution as murder, and then support the execution of perpetrators of "crimes against humanity". If you do, you aren't "opposed to murder of any kind", by your own definition.)
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 04/26/2002 18:54:18 |
 |
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/27/2002 : 09:33:58 [Permalink]
|
Atomic> (Head bangs against key-board table) I KNEW it was too late :).
TokyDreamer> “No, the state makes the laws. So you are saying that any killing is murder unless the person being killed has committed a "crime against humanity"? Who decides what that is?”
Any cold-blooded killing is murder. As I explicitly wrote “The only exception I can think of” was in relations to crimes against humanity. I can't write down an equation for you, but I'm pretty sure most people agree on what is meant by “Crimes against Humanity”.
“It removes a threat and an unnecessary burden on society.”
So if someone has killed before, do you think he/she will necessarily kill again?
“We do this all the time. If we spend x more money on y, z less people will die. Take your pick what y is, from automobile safety, to pharmaceuticals, to just about every other aspect of our lives.”
I'm asking you. Not what you think “we” do.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soldiers are killers. Do you want them executed, too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Don't be ridiculous.”
I am serious. Accusing me of ridicule is not an answer.
“A totally arbitrary distinction. I happen to think that if a person kills someone on the street for their purse, that they are just as deserving of death as someone who orders the deaths of people from a governmental position (except in warfare).”
Someone killing on the street for a purse may see it as a last resort to survival. Mind you, I do not condone the act. But someone sitting safe and fat in a governmental position with absolutely NO reason to order the slaying of thousands or millions of people is something entirely different.
“If killing more people is deserving of a stiffer penalty than killing less, aren't you placing a certain value on human life?”
It's not the quantity that's the issue. It's the cold ordering of the killing. If you can't see the difference between the mugger on the street and Hitler, I can't help you.
“Why is "cold blooded murder" justified in Milosevic's case? He's not killing people anymore, what does his death accomplish?”
Nothing for me. I would see it more as a “symbol” to the thousands of widows and fatherless children in ex-Yugoslavia, who still don't know if their husbands/fathers are missing or bones in an anonymous grave. Maybe it's just me, but I see “Crimes against Humanity” as far more serious than a single murder. Again it's not the quantity, but the deliberation and utter lack of need for those crimes.
Again, as I said: “The only exception I can think of.” In line with the non-existence of absolutes, except perhaps the speed of light in vacuum.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/29/2002 : 05:49:37 [Permalink]
|
I keep asking this question and no one answers. What does this mean? How does this help society, this idea that someone "deserves" death?
quote:
...they are just as deserving of death ....
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 03:17:46 [Permalink]
|
Omega wrote this:
quote:
Being strongly opposed to murder of any kind, I think the only exception I can think of, are crimes against humanity. Government leaders ordering massacres and ethnic cleansings. Milosovic, Hitler, who-ever ordered the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Stalin I would not and will not stand up for.
and this:
quote:
Any cold-blooded killing is murder. As I explicitly wrote “The only exception I can think of” was in relations to crimes against humanity. I can't write down an equation for you, but I'm pretty sure most people agree on what is meant by “Crimes against Humanity”.
and this:
quote:
Nothing for me. I would see it more as a “symbol” to the thousands of widows and fatherless children in ex-Yugoslavia, who still don't know if their husbands/fathers are missing or bones in an anonymous grave. Maybe it's just me, but I see “Crimes against Humanity” as far more serious than a single murder. Again it's not the quantity, but the deliberation and utter lack of need for those crimes.
1. I disagree with the idea of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being crimes against humanity. Shall we decide by vote what qualifies or, as I suggest, accept that your distinction is arbitrary as Tokyo said?
2. I'm confused about your definition of crimes against humanity. You imply that cold-bloodedness is the crucial factor. Then you imply that it cannot be singular. Can no single murders be cold-blooded? Then you say it is the "deliberation and utter lack of need" for a murder that would make it qualify. How then would you classify the murder some months ago in Texas by the white boys who chained a black man to their pick-up truck and dragged him to death? Only one death, but certainly no need for it. Take your pick of serial killers to see if they fit your definition(s).
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 07:29:21 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> You don't see the murder of the 100.000 civilians who died in Hiroshima as a crime against humanity? Especially when the bomb could've been dropped somewhere else (over the ocean or a desolate place) to display it's power first.
I don't see you having an idea about what qualifies as crimes against humanity. You think it's arbitrary? Can we at least agree the holocaust against Germanys Jews, Romani and Armenians qualifies?
When I say it's not the quantity that's the crucial factor, it does not mean it does not matter. But it is not the point.
Serial killers are insane. Executing them, will no prevent insanity in others. The murder you mention show these white guys to display terribly sociopathic tendencies. Executing them will not remove the racism that spawned the murder. And thereby other murders done out of racism.
Executing, say, Milosovich, will not change the tension in ex-Yugoslavia either. Or for that matter further crimes against humanity. He ordered the slaughter of people he doesn't even know for political reasons, not because he hates their “race” or wants their purse. He qualifies as utterly insane, but his death could be a symbol.
For the xxth time, it is the only exception I can THINK of. And I do not have an equation or formula for it. It has something to do with power and manipulation. If you look at your white guys, you'll probably find a history of racism and/or poverty.
If you take Milosovich, he suddenly turned from trying to unite ex-Yugoslavia, to using internal tension for his benefit. It's difficult to describe without writing a smaller essay, or maybe bigger.
Do you think there even are such a thing as a crime against humanity?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 08:55:05 [Permalink]
|
Omega:
quote:
Garrette> You don't see the murder of the 100.000 civilians who died in Hiroshima as a crime against humanity? Especially when the bomb could've been dropped somewhere else (over the ocean or a desolate place) to display it's power first.
No, to your question because I do not accept your statement. If you want to continue the discussion on this topic, let's start another thread, though I make no promises about how frequently I will post. My available time is sporadic.
quote:
I don't see you having an idea about what qualifies as crimes against humanity. You think it's arbitrary? Can we at least agree the holocaust against Germanys Jews, Romani and Armenians qualifies?
Since you postulated it, let's have your definition. Then I'll answer your question about the rest. The point remains that it is arbitrary, and reasonable people can disagree about what qualifies, or about what definition to apply.
quote:
When I say it's not the quantity that's the crucial factor, it does not mean it does not matter. But it is not the point.
So a crime against humanity CAN apply to the murder of one person. Let me see your definition and we may find we agree on a lot of this.
quote:
Serial killers are insane. Executing them, will no prevent insanity in others.
I don't think the death penalty has ever been put forth as a means to prevent insanity.
quote:
The murder you mention show these white guys to display terribly sociopathic tendencies. Executing them will not remove the racism that spawned the murder. And thereby other murders done out of racism.
Nor to prevent racism. It has been put forth as a deterrent to others which is a debatable point.
quote:
Executing, say, Milosovich, will not change the tension in ex-Yugoslavia either. Or for that matter further crimes against humanity. He ordered the slaughter of people he doesn't even know for political reasons, not because he hates their “race” or wants their purse. He qualifies as utterly insane, but his death could be a symbol.
A symbol of what and for whom? Are you arguing that it will prevent other national leaders from committing such atrocities? If so, how do you reconcile this with your previous statement about it not preventing racism-based murders?
quote:
For the xxth time, it is the only exception I can THINK of. And I do not have an equation or formula for it. It has something to do with power and manipulation.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 09:52:32 [Permalink]
|
I think you've said that anything done internationally cannot be a crime.
quote:
1. I disagree with the idea of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as being crimes against humanity.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 10:07:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think you've said that anything done internationally cannot be a crime.
Well, yes, but only because I'm an inhuman, amoral, capitalistic reprobate.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 10:12:04 [Permalink]
|
To be somewhat serious, though, I think your inference is a bit too general.
I have written comments to the effect that the concept of International Law as anything codified does not exist, and I granted the exception of maritime law, and, I think, such widespread treaties/conventions as Geneva-Hague.
From this, you can legitimately infer that I do not think there is such a thing as a violation of International Law.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Badger
Skeptic Friend
Canada
257 Posts |
Posted - 04/30/2002 : 21:47:51 [Permalink]
|
So, I'm sitting here thinking Homolka, Bernardo, Dahlmer, Hitler, Gacey, Pol Pot, ....
I'd pull the trigger on all of 'em.
Why? Not out of revenge. I'd pull the trigger because it's best for society. And that's what I was talking about at the beginning. I'm not talking about the thousands on death row who may or may not be innocent. I'm talking about the folk who have proven they're not worth the oxygen they're using up.
When there's no doubt. When the criminal is that far gone, when they've proven what they are, then do 'em in.
We're splitting hairs here, where no hairs need to be split. (in my humble opinion)
If you think it's work, you're doing it wrong. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 04:02:16 [Permalink]
|
I'm with Badger. Given no doubt as to guilt, then I support the death penalty. I think the US does a generally fine job in determining what crimes are subject to it.
I'm with Tokyo, too. Given our demonstrably flawed system, insitutionalized death penalty is unacceptable.
Much like any unsavory chore, I can support the death penalty, even be willing to carry it out myself, and still be abhorred by its necessity.
It is not a trite example to cite the hypothetical scenario of someone terrorizing your family and threatening your children, perhaps having killed one of them already. Would you kill the villain to save the others? I would.
I suppose that's more self-defense, though,
so let's extend the example.
Bad Guy kills your family. You have absolute, irrefutable knowledge of who Bad Guy is, but were unable to kill Bad Guy at the time of the commission of the crime. Your society is notoriously lax on criminals. You are angry. Could you now kill Bad Guy though he threatens you no longer? I believe I could. That's the death penalty, and it is applied without regard to deterrent effect, recidivism rates, or any sociological ramifications. It is applied because you want Bad Guy dead.
Perhaps I am the only one who would respond this way.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 04:19:24 [Permalink]
|
It is applied without care about reality. That's exactly my point. There is no "deserve" in nature. So what if you're angry or sad or happy? What is best for society is the question. Is it best for society to teach that killing is the answer to problems?
quote:
Bad Guy kills your family. You have absolute, irrefutable knowledge of who Bad Guy is, but were unable to kill Bad Guy at the time of the commission of the crime. Your society is notoriously lax on criminals. You are angry. Could you now kill Bad Guy though he threatens you no longer? I believe I could. That's the death penalty, and it is applied without regard to deterrent effect, recidivism rates, or any sociological ramifications. It is applied because you want Bad Guy dead.
Perhaps I am the only one who would respond this way.
My kids still love me.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 05:26:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is applied without care about reality.
I don't understand this.
quote:
There is no "deserve" in nature.
I agree.
quote:
So what if you're angry or sad or happy? What is best for society is the question.
When we talk about someone else, the question is what is best for society. When we talk about ourselves, the question is what is best for us.
Since you seem to be taking an evolutionary bent to this, then the point really seems to be what is best for me.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 05:30:02 [Permalink]
|
What is best for you has nothing to do with your anger. Anger has nothing to do with reality. Anger has nothing to do with solving problems.
I don't know what you mean about an evolutionary bent.
quote:
Since you seem to be taking an evolutionary bent to this, then the point really seems to be what is best for me.
My kids still love me.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 05/01/2002 05:40:14 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/01/2002 : 05:41:16 [Permalink]
|
What I meant to say is that the death penalty is applied without any basis in reality. We kill because we're pissed off. Not much different than those we're killing. We don't even seem to care if we get the "right guy."
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
