|
Post by pumpkinpie on Nov 12, 2008 10:12:56 GMT -5
My dictionary's definitions:
Homicide- The killing of one human being by another.
Murder- homicide with malice aforethought- v.t. 1 kill with premeditated malice. 2 kill barbarously. 3, mar by poor execution
( I don't use wikepedia as my source of truth to an argument.)
|
|
dpfs
New Arrival
Death Penalty Fence Sitters
Posts: 6
|
Post by dpfs on Nov 13, 2008 0:02:16 GMT -5
murderer (Taken from the Cambridge dictionary) noun someone who illegally and intentionally kills another person: A convicted murderer was executed in North Carolina yesterday.
murder (Taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary) Function: noun 1 : the intentional and unlawful killing of a person
Please notice both say Illegal / Unlawful killing of a person. Since an execution is ordered from a court, it is legal, and therefore not murder.
Homicide (Taken from Encyclopedia Britannica)
the killing of one human being by another. Homicide is a general term and may refer to a noncriminal act as well as the criminal act of murder. Some homicides are considered justifiable, such as the killing of a person to prevent the commission of a serious felony or to aid a representative of the law. Other homicides are said to be excusable, as when a person kills in self-defense. A criminal homicide is one that is not regarded by the applicable criminal code as justifiable or excusable. All legal systems make important distinctions between different types of homicide, and punishments vary greatly according to the intent of the killer, the dangerousness of his conduct, and the circumstances in which he acted.
Like I said, my first reference was taken from Wikipedia, because I knew the distinction between murder and justifiable homicide , and did not have to dig deeper.
Although I believe executions are wrong, I do understand that they are legal. When someone refers to executions as murders, it only makes that person look foolish and may diminish other valuable points this person my use to oppose the death penalty.
Ron
Just in case:
execute (KILL) (Taken from the Cambridge dictionary) verb to kill someone as a legal punishment:
execution (Taken from the Cambridge dictionary) noun when someone is killed as a legal punishment:
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Nov 13, 2008 10:56:32 GMT -5
My dictionary's definitions: Homicide- The killing of one human being by another. Murder- homicide with malice aforethought- v.t. 1 kill with premeditated malice. 2 kill barbarously. 3, mar by poor execution ( I don't use wikepedia as my source of truth to an argument.) As you see in this definiton, murder and homicide are not very different. Murder is premeditated homicide. What do you think execution is? It's premeditated.
|
|
dpfs
New Arrival
Death Penalty Fence Sitters
Posts: 6
|
Post by dpfs on Nov 13, 2008 13:24:47 GMT -5
As you see in this definiton, murder and homicide are not very different. Murder is premeditated homicide. What do you think execution is? It's premeditated. Murder is the illegal or unlawfull killing of a person.
An execution is considered a justifiable homicide and is legal.Very big difference, if there was no difference, all one would have to do, is have all the participants of an execution arrested (judge, prosecuting lawyer, prison staff etc...) and the death penalty would no longer exist. For another example, a police sniper who kills a person (ie. a hostage crisis) in the line of duty, has not committed murder because it is legal act. It is a premeditated act, but it is considered legal (therefore not murder). Ron
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Nov 13, 2008 17:54:24 GMT -5
Here's MY definition of murder.
Murder - the UNJUSTIFIED killing of another person.
Execution - the JUSTIFIED killing of another person.
I'll post more when I have more time but it really is DISHONEST to pretend there's no difference.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Nov 13, 2008 21:25:30 GMT -5
Here's MY definition of murder. Murder - the UNJUSTIFIED killing of another person. Execution - the JUSTIFIED killing of another person. I'll post more when I have more time but it really is DISHONEST to pretend there's no difference. Any murder can be considered justifiable to the one carrying it out. Murder is killing, plain and simple. When a person is executed, they are killed.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Nov 14, 2008 20:14:20 GMT -5
I'm going to respond to this properly tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Nov 22, 2008 14:54:16 GMT -5
What makes murder unjustified and execution justified? What makes some killings murder and others justified homicide?
I'll start by arguing the self-defence case. In law, if someone is trying to kill you or your family, you have a right to defend yourself. In the same way, if someone is trying to attack or rape you, you have a right to defend yourself and if your actions of self-defence lead to the death of your assailant, the law will find you NOT guilty of murder.
In the same way, society has a right to defend itself against those who take the lives of its members. Executing a murderer is an act of self-defence on the part of society and constitutes the use of reasonable force.
To compare an act of self-defence by an individual which results in death with murder is silly and dishonest. In the same way, it's dishonest and absurd to compare the act of execution, a form of self-defence by society against murderers, with the act of murder.
Is a soldier in a war guilty of murder if he kills an enemy who is trying to take his own life? Only extreme pacifists would answer yes to that one.
Is a policeman who kills a robber guilty of murder? Again, most people would argue that he is NOT.
Now let's look at some more complex moral dilemmas. Is a pilot who bombs an enemy city guilty of murder? Is an MVS like Marianne Bachmeier who killed the man who'd raped and murdered her daughter guilty of murder? Were the gypsies who saved my Uncle Jaime's life by killing two Nazis and a Vichy French collaborator who would have murdered HIM in Auschwitz as happened to his parents, brother and sister, guilty of murder?
What of the French Resistance, who carried out bombings and assassinations to try and free France from the Nazi yoke? What of ETA, who have carried out bombings and assassinations to try and free the Basque people from their Spanish oppressors?
ALL the cases I've mentioned seem to me clear and unequivocal examples of self-defence, except for the pilot and Marianne Bachmeier, which are examples of JUSTIFIED homicide.
In the same way, executing murderers is CLEARLY an act of self-defence by society against vicious predators who destroy human life.
There is NO comparison between the act of murder and the act of execution.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Nov 22, 2008 20:14:14 GMT -5
What makes murder unjustified and execution justified? What makes some killings murder and others justified homicide? I'll start by arguing the self-defence case. In law, if someone is trying to kill you or your family, you have a right to defend yourself. In the same way, if someone is trying to attack or rape you, you have a right to defend yourself and if your actions of self-defence lead to the death of your assailant, the law will find you NOT guilty of murder. In the same way, society has a right to defend itself against those who take the lives of its members. Executing a murderer is an act of self-defence on the part of society and constitutes the use of reasonable force. To compare an act of self-defence by an individual which results in death with murder is silly and dishonest. In the same way, it's dishonest and absurd to compare the act of execution, a form of self-defence by society against murderers, with the act of murder. Is a soldier in a war guilty of murder if he kills an enemy who is trying to take his own life? Only extreme pacifists would answer yes to that one. Is a policeman who kills a robber guilty of murder? Again, most people would argue that he is NOT. Now let's look at some more complex moral dilemmas. Is a pilot who bombs an enemy city guilty of murder? Is an MVS like Marianne Bachmeier who killed the man who'd raped and murdered her daughter guilty of murder? Were the gypsies who saved my Uncle Jaime's life by killing two Nazis and a Vichy French collaborator who would have murdered HIM in Auschwitz as happened to his parents, brother and sister, guilty of murder? What of the French Resistance, who carried out bombings and assassinations to try and free France from the Nazi yoke? What of ETA, who have carried out bombings and assassinations to try and free the Basque people from their Spanish oppressors? ALL the cases I've mentioned seem to me clear and unequivocal examples of self-defence, except for the pilot and Marianne Bachmeier, which are examples of JUSTIFIED homicide. In the same way, executing murderers is CLEARLY an act of self-defence by society against vicious predators who destroy human life. There is NO comparison between the act of murder and the act of execution. Hi biglinmarshall, You make a pretty good point actually. I just want to remind you that once an inmate is executed, the time for self defense or to defend another is over. It's years too late to defend one's self by the time execution arises. By that time murder is being committed all over again. A killing for a killing is what's happening then. Or in worse case senarios, an innocent man is being executed.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Nov 23, 2008 3:11:13 GMT -5
In the same way, society has a right to defend itself against those who take the lives of its members. Executing a murderer is an act of self-defence on the part of society and constitutes the use of reasonable force. Wrong. It is quite unreasonable force. It is equivalent to being attacked by someone, surviving, and then breaking into their house years later and shooting them dead. The law would describe that as unreasonable force. Your argument is specious.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Nov 23, 2008 8:58:18 GMT -5
In the same way, society has a right to defend itself against those who take the lives of its members. Executing a murderer is an act of self-defence on the part of society and constitutes the use of reasonable force. Wrong. It is quite unreasonable force. It is equivalent to being attacked by someone, surviving, and then breaking into their house years later and shooting them dead. The law would describe that as unreasonable force. Your argument is specious. Wrong. It is NOT unreasonable force. Your comparison is dishonest and shows utter desperation. NOT all killings ARE murder and to execute someone after they've had a fair trial and committed a horrible crime is NOT murder. I'm going to try a thought experiment here soon.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Nov 23, 2008 12:21:38 GMT -5
Wrong. It is NOT unreasonable force. Your comparison is dishonest and shows utter desperation. NOT all killings ARE murder and to execute someone after they've had a fair trial and committed a horrible crime is NOT murder. I'm going to try a thought experiment here soon. I have no desperation. The DP is pure bloody revenge and the real desperation is seen from those who try to excuse it, knowing that they cannot. The risks are too high, the rewards do not exist. It marks the US as a savage nation, standing outside of the circle of the civilized world. In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned... So that they may be urged the more to praise God... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens... to the damned.- St. Thomas Aquinas, answering the question, “Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned,” Summa Theologica The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance.- Psalm 58:10 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me.-Isaiah 66:24 "The law is not about forgiveness. It is oftentimes about vengeance, oftentimes about revenge."-John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, speaking at a Justice Department prayer meeting.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Nov 23, 2008 19:01:10 GMT -5
I have no desperation. The DP is pure bloody revenge and the real desperation is seen from those who try to excuse it, knowing that they cannot. The risks are too high, the rewards do not exist. It marks the US as a savage nation, standing outside of the circle of the civilized world.
What a load of dishonest rubbish!
The DP is NOT uniquely an act of revenge (in fact it's not revenge at all - it's retributive justice) and any argument that uses the myth of revenge applies equally to ANY form of punishment.
If execution is revenge, so is imprisonment, or fining, or community service.
There are many GOOD arguments against the death penalty.
So far I haven't heard you put ANY of them forward. You seem to rely on arguments that are either blatantly dishonest, purely emotional or just illogical.
A closed mind is an EMPTY mind because it doesn't allow the possibility of error (and therefore inconvenient truths) to get inside.
I'll have to post my thought experiment - though whether anyone on this board can be bothered to try it except me is doubtful.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Nov 23, 2008 22:31:06 GMT -5
I have no desperation. The DP is pure bloody revenge and the real desperation is seen from those who try to excuse it, knowing that they cannot. The risks are too high, the rewards do not exist. It marks the US as a savage nation, standing outside of the circle of the civilized world.What a load of dishonest rubbish! The DP is NOT uniquely an act of revenge (in fact it's not revenge at all - it's retributive justice) and any argument that uses the myth of revenge applies equally to ANY form of punishment. If execution is revenge, so is imprisonment, or fining, or community service. There are many GOOD arguments against the death penalty. So far I haven't heard you put ANY of them forward. You seem to rely on arguments that are either blatantly dishonest, purely emotional or just illogical. A closed mind is an EMPTY mind because it doesn't allow the possibility of error (and therefore inconvenient truths) to get inside. I'll have to post my thought experiment - though whether anyone on this board can be bothered to try it except me is doubtful. Imprisonment, fining and community service are not examples of revenge because they don't involve the killing of another human being. Holding one accountable for their actions isn't revenge. When the life is sucked out of another human because of their actions, that's when revenge comes in to play.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Nov 24, 2008 14:33:20 GMT -5
I have no desperation. The DP is pure bloody revenge and the real desperation is seen from those who try to excuse it, knowing that they cannot. The risks are too high, the rewards do not exist. It marks the US as a savage nation, standing outside of the circle of the civilized world.What a load of dishonest rubbish! The DP is NOT uniquely an act of revenge (in fact it's not revenge at all - it's retributive justice) and any argument that uses the myth of revenge applies equally to ANY form of punishment. If execution is revenge, so is imprisonment, or fining, or community service. There are many GOOD arguments against the death penalty. So far I haven't heard you put ANY of them forward. You seem to rely on arguments that are either blatantly dishonest, purely emotional or just illogical. A closed mind is an EMPTY mind because it doesn't allow the possibility of error (and therefore inconvenient truths) to get inside. I'll have to post my thought experiment - though whether anyone on this board can be bothered to try it except me is doubtful. Imprisonment, fining and community service are not examples of revenge because they don't involve the killing of another human being. Holding one accountable for their actions isn't revenge. When the life is sucked out of another human because of their actions, that's when revenge comes in to play. That's doubly illogical, I'm afraid. I'm married to a philosopher so I'll show you exactly how and why your argument is a complete fallacy. First of all, it 'begs the question' - in other words, it starts from an UNQUESTIONED and UNVERIFIED premiss that the act of execution IS an act of revenge BECAUSE it involves the taking of another human life. PROVE IT! Secondly, unless you're going to oppose ANY and EVERY aspect of taking life - such as war and even self-defence, then your whole argument is self-contradictory to the point where it's at least verging on downright hypocrisy. What you've done is to violate 'the law of the excluded middle' which means that something can be either one thing or another but not both. (Technically, they call it 'if p, then q; if not p, then not q.' ) What you're arguing is that some p can be q and some aren't q which breaks one of the most fundamental laws of logic. Finally, MANY antis OPENLY argue in favour of LWOP precisely BECAUSE they want the inmates to suffer and think that death is too easy an option. If I had a pound for every sadistic and anti-inmate remark I've heard from antis on message boards over the last two years I'd be almost as rich as Bill Gates! The FACT is that ALL forms of punishment COULD be claimed to involve an element of revenge and it's just DISHONEST to claim that the death penalty UNIQUELY involves that possibility.
|
|