Alitare wrote: What is birth but the enabling of potential death? If you don't wish for your child to die, never have the child. Seems quite a bit like prevention. There is almost always potential for murder. Killing a man is taking his potential to murder away, giving birth to a child is increasing the overall potential for murder and death. So, in some views, child birth could be considered "worse" than murder. [...]

I'm sorry, but this is beyond absurd. You're taking the "every one who is born will ultimately die" to a far too extreme view. Birth is enabling death?? Death shall always happen by murder??

And yes, we are a bit off-topic.

Alitare wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Alitare wrote: This is quite the subjective premise. There is no real right or wrong answer (again, I don't believe in right or wrong) At any rate, I feel any and all actions and reactions would be natural. I don't see murder as being much different than giving birth. If you can be locked up for murder, why not that? I mean, shouldn't you be to blame for bringing life into existence when it will assuredly eventually die. Optimists can and will argue the validity of this point, saying such of potential and right to pursuit of happiness. I would just like to add it to the conversation. Whoa whoa whoa what? No way in hell is murder the same as child birth. No way. That is like saying that taking sweets from a baby is exactly the same as giving them to him because by giving him a sweet you are enabling it to be taken away from him. Bullsh*t man, utter bullsh*t, sorry to be disrespectful. My sister just gave birth (making me an uncle finally YAY!) whilst someone shot a police officer in Ireland in cold blood not so long ago. You're saying they should be in the same cell? What is birth but the enabling of potential death? If you don't wish for your child to die, never have the child. Seems quite a bit like prevention. There is almost always potential for murder. Killing a man is taking his potential to murder away, giving birth to a child is increasing the overall potential for murder and death. So, in some views, child birth could be considered "worse" than murder. Of course they are different actions, one is direct taking of life, the other is indirect, as it is enabling the potential for death. If no birth occurs, no death can occur. "You're saying they should be in the same cell?" Perhaps I am saying there should be no cell at all. And, be as disrespectful as you wish. I simply ask you defend your point of view, or the point of view you choose to defend to the best of your abilities, so we may progress. My goal is not to argue or bicker, or anger. I am offering possible points of view for discussion.

It's true that child birth leads indirectly to all kinds of, umm, unpleasantness, but murder and violence in general constitute this unpleasantness.

I would agree that childbirth is a bad decision in some circumstances, but if law actually worked the way it's supposed to, such circumstances would be rare or nonexistent. So you cannot really compare childbirth with murder. One may lead to evil, the other is almost always evil. Take away the latter and the former leads to good.    

Dean wrote: Logan wrote: Could it make a difference, do you think, if there was a death penalty to contend with? That is a problem for the murderer, they were aware of the consequences before committing the crime.   It would still sit heavily on my conscience that I was instrumental in sending them to death-row whether they were family or not - but I would not hold myself personally responsible because the chances are they would have been caught, tried, found guilty and sentenced with or without me - however, my action may prevent another innocent from dying.   Personally I am against the death penalty - taking of one life does not justify the taking of another.

I'm also against the death penalty.  I also see it as slippery slope because once you condone it for one thing it's difficult to condemn it for another.  Some countries execute people for adultery, prostitution, murder, drug trafficking, being a traitor, and various offences.  It's also a problem because DNA analysis has shown that executed individuals were not guilty and people are not always given a fair trial. And it goes against my moral values generally.

Not all murderers are aware of consequences -- sometimes it happens during temporary insanity, or with mentally handicapped or mentally ill individuals.  Now in our judicial systems, those people would be expected to get a  fairer trial than in others.  How about juveniles who are sentenced to death?  Imagine you're a resident of Iran with your nine year old daughter (in Iran according to their penal code, girls as young as nine and boys as young as 15 can be executed) and she stabbed someone apparently not in self-defence, would you turn her in?  I guess it depends.  What about if she was mentally ill and you thought she might still get the death penalty?  And what about other offences, such as prostitution (sorry for going on a tangent)?

Off-topic, but here's an article:

Mentally-ill girl who was sold for sex faces death penalty in Iran

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/mentallyill-girl-who-was-sold-for-sex-faces-death-penalty-in-iran-686668.html

Now she didn't stab anyone, but prostitution is a capital offence in Iran.

I would take action to prevent another death, but in some cases I could see myself being very reluctant to turn someone into the authorities.  Even if the stabbing was not in self-defence, that stabbing might be in the defence of others.  Yet a person may still be executed even if the stabbing had justification (and another side-note, in some nations it's more guilty until proven innocent, but that's a side-topic).

Another article: "Europe Urges Iran to Spare Young Killer"
 http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3311732,00.html

And UN: Five Countries Responsible for All Executions of Juvenile Offenders Since 2005

In those cases it's interesting because of international laws meant to protect juveniles which some states do not follow.


Edited by Logan - March 31 2009 at 16:05

Visitor13 wrote: Negoba wrote: goth songs Now that is a crime

Alitare wrote: Negoba wrote: I almost answered last night, but didn't have time to organize my thoughts.   First of all, the Doctor has pretty much said the core of what I think well.   But here's another thought.   Right now, I think about my children, my brother and there's no way I'd turn them in. But there's also no way they'd kill anybody....in fact I don't think anyone in my family including myself would have the constitution to kill in self defense. But that's half the reason I can't imagine turning them in either.   It is extremely unlikely that someone who stabs someone has not already been heading down the path to trouble long before. Hopefully, if it was a family member, I would have tried to intervene long before. By the time it came to murder, then by all means it would be time to leave it up to the justice system. I would visit my loved one in prison, but for the protection of society he or she should be locked up. Since when did society (which is composed of people) become more important than people? A thought: Kill all humans. If no humans existed, no humans would exist to suffer/make war/torture/kill/break law/steal/rape/die/do all the crazy things we humans like to do. It is the ultimate crime prevention! If no humans existed, this wouldn't be a problem, at all. Law is ideally supposed to be crime prevention, right? Why not go the way of ultimate prevention?

Because if we go all the way, you wont be around to argue these points on the internet with other people.
Duh.
In modern society, the internet and internet drama has proven to be far more important than the question of whether humans existence causes suffering and pain, death etc.
Surely you'd take the internet over that?
I just don't believe that you believe in what your saying that strongly.
I guarantee if tomorrow someone has you at knife point you're not gonna be relaxed and thinking "Awesome, my death is one step closer to ultimate mercy for all".
99 out of 100 probability says instead you'll sh*t your pants and will want to go home safe to continue using the internet.


Edited by Petrovsk Mizinski - March 31 2009 at 16:25

^ Summer Breeze.... oh man....

What's wrong with the death penalty? Why only this morning the news mentioned some truck driver who was, allegedly, retuning his satnav and totalled a car with a family of four in it.

Edited by limeyrob - April 01 2009 at 03:14

Raff wrote: limeyrob wrote: What's wrong with the death penalty? Why only this morning the news mentioned some truck driver who was, allegedly, retuning his satnav and totalled a car with a family of four in it. Will it bring back those who have died? Since it won't, it's called vengeance....

Not to mention that it doesn't seem to act as a deterrent. And why would it, it's probably even less torturous than a regular death, not to mention deaths of illnesses like cancer.

Unless of course you want to bring back execution methods from the past... do you? 

Raff wrote: limeyrob wrote: What's wrong with the death penalty? Why only this morning the news mentioned some truck driver who was, allegedly, retuning his satnav and totalled a car with a family of four in it. Will it bring back those who have died? Since it won't, it's called vengeance....

limeyrob wrote: Raff wrote: limeyrob wrote: What's wrong with the death penalty? Why only this morning the news mentioned some truck driver who was, allegedly, retuning his satnav and totalled a car with a family of four in it. Will it bring back those who have died? Since it won't, it's called vengeance....   Yeah you're right. Let's ban satnav instead.

I don't see why you should patronise me like that, since I wasn't rude to you.

Anyway, western European countries banned the death penalty after the war, and hopefully none of them will go back to adopting it. Moreover, though I think the guy in question should get a lengthy prison sentence, if you sentence  a person to death for something like that, I would hate to think what you would do to someone who committed first-degree murder.


Edited by Raff - April 01 2009 at 15:13