The death penalty

[Laurens]

Whenever a criminal forces a victim into a situation where lethal force is a legal option, justice would demand that said criminal would receive the same penalty as the victim would receive if wrongfully convicted of murder.

I am sure that you are smart enough to understand why.

I fail to see where you are going with this...

Whenever a person is intentionally killed, it is either rightfully or wrongfully so. Would you agree with that?

I don't think intentionally killing someone is ever necessarily right, at least not in civilian life. You might be able to show me an example of it being right, but I can't think of anything.

If you kill someone in self defence, I don't think it is wrong, but it is not intentional. In order for it to be legitimate self defence it has to be the only option. Self defence is doing what you can in order to make sure you're safe. The intentions of someone defending themselves should be to do what they can to ensure their safety, the intention should not be to kill necessarily. If you kill them it is a by product of the intention to stay safe.

If you ever point a weapon at someone, with the intent to kill, and you kill them for that purpose alone in my opinion you have done wrong.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Forgive me, I've been away. Did any refutation of my two-word objection arise?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No, hack - did you really believe it would be!?

As regards the use of lethal force in self-defence - as far as I know, you are only allowed use "sufficient force", not lethal; mugging the mugger is against the law.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[thenexttodie]

Whenever a criminal forces a victim into a situation where lethal force is a legal option, justice would demand that said criminal would receive the same penalty as the victim would receive if wrongfully convicted of murder.

I am sure that you are smart enough to understand why.

I fail to see where you are going with this...

A criminal attack on your mother could possibly result in her herself being (perhaps wrongfully) convicted of murder. Thus in any crime which lethal force would be rightfully allowed by the victim, the criminal must receive the same punishment as a murderer.

Whenever a person is intentionally killed, it is either rightfully or wrongfully so. Would you agree with that?

I don't think intentionally killing someone is ever necessarily right, at least not in civilian life. You might be able to show me an example of it being right, but I can't think of anything.

If you kill someone in self defence, I don't think it is wrong, but it is not intentional.

Laurens, the first rule that you will probably learn in the US with any sort of firearms training is to never point a gun at anyone unless you intend to kill that person. Beyond that, there are certainly instances of self defence or in defence of a loved one where you should make sure the attacker is quite dead, as quickly as possible so you can immediately devote the rest of you attention to the medical attention of the victim or any medical care you may need.

In order for it to be legitimate self defence it has to be the only option. Self defence is doing what you can in order to make sure you're safe. The intentions of someone defending themselves should be to do what they can to ensure their safety, the intention should not be to kill necessarily. If you kill them it is a by product of the intention to stay safe.

If you ever point a weapon at someone, with the intent to kill, and you kill them for that purpose alone in my opinion you have done wrong.

Is there any reason why the world should consider your artsy-fartsy philosophic mania as helpful standard for what? For a guidline on punishing victims of violent crime? You can't stop hating the victim and loving the criminal, can you?

 

[Laurens]

A criminal attack on your mother could possibly result in her herself being (perhaps wrongfully) convicted of murder. Thus in any crime which lethal force would be rightfully allowed by the victim, the criminal must receive the same punishment as a murderer.

And wrongful murder convictions are possibly the best argument against the death penalty.

Is there any reason why the world should consider your artsy-fartsy philosophic mania as helpful standard for what? For a guidline on punishing victims of violent crime? You can't stop hating the victim and loving the criminal, can you?

No one is asking me why they should consider my opinion. I'm giving it because this if a forum where we discuss our opinions. I don't personally see why my view that the death penalty is barbaric is untenable.

Not wanting to slaughter a criminal doesn't equate to hating their victim. That's a strawman and you cunting well know it.

 

[Visaki]

I'm told that it can convict me of—here's the definition of totalitarianism—thought crime, for what I think I may be convicted and condemned.
- Christopher Hitchens

You know I am kinda wondering what is the point of talking about death penalty with a person who is for death penalty for thought crimes.

 

[Nesslig20]

At this point the conversation has gone to equating self defense with death penalty, which it isn't. Laurence explained that multiple times.

I don't see why the fact that killing out of self defense is not wrong would justify death penalty. Sometimes acts that started as self-defense are not judged as rightful. If someone came up and swings a knife at me, I probably going to think that this person will kill me if I am not going to defend myself. If I had the choice I rather not, but I could hit that person with something to knock him out if I have to. If then I knocked him out, no one would probably object to that. But if I picked up the knife and stabbed that person while he/she was unconscious (not anymore of a threat) no reasonable person would say that was out of self-defense. May be someone can say that I was very scared and traumatized and the reason why I killed the homicidal maniac was out of fear, thus at best I can plead for diminished responsibility. But even that is not analogous to the death penalty, because during the death penalty, no one is killing the prisoner out of fear of being in danger. To make it analogous, I would, after knocking the criminal out, have to take him somewhere and lock him up in a room for a period of time, tell that I'm going to execute him on a set date for reason that he deserves it because he tried to kill me and than kill him. No one would say that was self-defense nor acting out of fear.