Monday, February 23, 2009

Lawbreaking Part Two

Hey guys so Stitches is Oliver (Me). Sorry I forgot to sign my post... oops.
I'm curious, because many of you brought up the issue of killing someone. Why is killing someone wrong? Don't murderers deserve to die? It doesn't make sense to me that in our society killing is viewed as wrong, yet someone who does so is in a sense given a secure home, bed, and has all of their general needs met for life. Does that punishment really fit the crime? This kind of turned into a question about capital punishment, but I'm curious to here your reactions. (And yes, I do agree, but I don't understand WHY...)
So... why is killing wrong?

14 comments:

Ry Barney said...

I do not think killing is wrong in the sense of being "unethical" when the right people die. yes i said it. the right people die! Like one of my favorite comedians Ron White states, "If you kill someone here in texas, we will kill you back!" I love that policy. If someone were to rape, kill, torture, or do any combination of the above to my sister, mother, or any of my friends, you better beleive i'd hope they'd get every opportunity taken away from them to sleep in a bed, eat three square meals a day, and god forbid get a second chance. I care NOTHING for your rights when you do something like that to another human being. There is nothing you can do or say to earn forgivness for an offense of that level. YOu deserve to reveice what you dealt. I'm sorry that my language might be a little harsh, but i'm not quite sure how else to word it... We are all given rights according to the U.S. constitution. When you betray those rights given to you to a degree that great, those rights never belong to you again. However, this is just my opinion. I'd love to hear others.

kaitlynL said...

I agree with Ryan in the sense that if I have an emotional tie to someone, I am going to feel they deserve drastic punishment. But what happens when crimes like those are committed against people that you don't know or really care about? How strongly do you feel that the person committing the crime should be punished so severly? I believe that people should get a punishment that fits the crime, of course, but when emotional ties to people come into play, I think it becomes a whole other ball game. Once the person is someone who you don't know, I would find it hard to believe that you would have such a fire under you to get them punished as soon as possible.
Oh, and this is Kaitlyn Lundeby, by the way.

griffin said...

Wow Barney, I'm agreeing with you for once. Capital punishment should obviously be an option reserved for the most heinous of criminals. Kaitlyn, look. So what if YOU don't have an emotional tie? Are you the only person who shares the world with a murderer? Someone else has been hurt deeply and frankly, whether one particular person is affected is a moot point.
The one problem I have with the death penalty is its error rate. As much as we love to protect and defend life, we cannot allow these values to go out the window when dealing with a criminal. All options must be open to prove them guilty, as well as innocent. Too many innocent people have been killed through capital punishment, ironically, through our societies goal of protecting life. Not only are these deaths an injustice, but they denigrate an otherwise relatively moral and sensible system.

Rachel said...

Regardless of the crime, I don't believe in capital punishment. Deciding that it is a murder's time to die is as audacious as the murder's decision that it is ok to end their victim's life. Yes, I do believe in life prison and solitary confinement, by the way. I actually think solitary confinement is a million times worth than capital punishment - nothing to live for, no society to find purpose in, no people to care for, and a sentence as undetermined as your own life span, making you WISH you were dead already.

I base this reasoning in a more domestic example, one which was presented during the history court of appeals prep: the defendant was guilty, he did have drug paraphernalia on his person. What is being contested is the legality of the search that lead to this discovery. The issue is not weather he is guilty. He is. However, if police violated this guilty man's rights before they knew he was guilty, not recognizing this violation could lead to the violation of an innocent person. Though the defendant is guilty, I believe the police overstepped themselves in trying to apprehend the criminal, therefor behaving criminally themselves. Though murder is far worse than doing drugs, the same theory applies, in my mind.

We punish people who kill people by killing them. Is this logical? Either it is fair retribution, or you end up with two murders rather than one, and one of them remains at large.

Drivebracket said...

My theory is this, and apologies for its being so blunt but, you kill someone and you should die in return. Period. I take this stand, and in contrary to what I normally believe, I take it so strongly, because we are talking about a human life. A person, a person with hopes, dreams, problems, their own beliefs and friends and life, the sum total of one person's being is being extinguished by another person, and that is one thing I will not stand for. I make one and only one exception, and that is if that extinguishing of life took place in a 100% provable and understandable self defense. I accept no other justification. There is no other reason in which killing is even vaguely permissable, and it is barely permissable in self defense in my opinion. The taking of a human life is an unacceptable thing, and as such the greatest punishment our society can deliver must be administered. A punishment greater than being provided for for the rest of one's natural life with a health care better than that of many working people while only having to contend with one's own mind. Our society, rightly, condems cruel and unusual punishment, so the greatest punishment left to us is the extinguishing of that life in exchange for the life taken. That is my belief.

Drivebracket said...

Also this is David. I can never remember to sign these things.

Stitches said...

Rachel... if solitary confinement is worse than simply killing someone, then isn't it just as bad if the murderer remains at large? Either way you have inflicted an undeserved, serious punishment on an innocent. Wouldn't, in that case, it be better to simply kill them so you don't screw them up mentally if they (being the innocent) are ever released back into the world?

David... is it ever possible to have one hundred percent proof?

griffin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
griffin said...

Rachel, you appear to take a somewhat sadomasochistic approach to this whole issue. Why is it necessary for us to keep a murderer alive? Why resort to torturing someone for, in turn, torturing other people, either physically or psychologically? Is that not at least slightly contradictory? Conversely, WE, the society as a whole, are allowed to be end a life when the majority of a society decides that it is an acceptable punishment for a crime. No prolonged torture, immediate justice.

Elliott said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Drivebracket said...

You are right Elliot, the killing of killers does seem to be a fallacy of sorts, but what I meant was this: In killing a human, the killer gives up his rights by having commited so depraved an act. As such, our society, not any single person, but our society and law system as a whole has an obligation to punish this person in the greatest capacity we have in order to serve justice. This is different from a man killing another man, this is a case where our law, whose workers are called in court by what they represent, the people, acts in the name of our ideal of perfect justice and takes the life of one who has given up their own via a heinous act. As far as your example, it takes place in a different realm whose regulations I am not familiar with. This is a soldier fighting a soldier, and thus falls under the 'articles of war' or whatever they are called, and not under civil regulations.

Drivebracket said...

Curses! That was David. I can never remember to sign these things.

James Rogers said...

Well if you think about it, the court system isn't perfect, and there ARE people accused of crimes they didn't commit, there are probably even lawyers who are able to get innocent people accused of some pretty heinous stuff just because of everything adding up to seem like something it's really not. Now even though it seems bad to be sustaining their life for free, it's impossible to say, oops that person didn't do it, but they're dead. Oh well? At least those in prisons can be returned to their normal lives, at least in part. I disagree that prison is worse than death, it's not like they're being tortured or anything *coughcough* that might be worse than death...

B. Wurz said...

Well, Ryan, I gotta say I pretty much completely agree with you. But, the false conviction point is a very good one. I suppose Ryan's post prompted me to think of something else: taking the law into your own hands. When is it right? I feel it would certainly be the right thing to kill someone who had killed, raped, tortured, etc someone in my family or someone I was very close to, IF I WAS COMPLETELY SURE THAT PERSON WAS RESPONSIBLE.
What do you guys think?