BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Kaleea
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 12:42 AM

If one looks only at the title of this thread, then one might think of the nature channel on which the basic core of our earth ecology is based upon: the bigger critter eating the smaller critter to survive. Then we go round the dial to the news channel where people have been attacked by their enemies and must take arms to defend their homes, families & country (or what is left of it in some cases), & in the next story we see the zealots who have been enraged for so many centuries that no one remembers why they are fighting, but they do know that they hate the enemy & the enemy must be killed at all costs, even if it means suicide bombs or whatever because that is serving "God" and their country's cause. Then we go to the next channel where there is a movie which glorifies people who drive fast, fancy cars, steal & murder while the audience cheers them on. So I suppose it sounds as though it depends upon the perception of the person(s) doing the killing, doesn't it. If one asks a holy person of ANY major religion to read the scriptures in their holy book on the subject of killing, it will unequivocally maintain that to rise up & murder another person is against the beliefs & teachings of that book/or teachings of that religious philosophy. Evidently there are a great many people who either do not read the holy scriptures, or they ignore them.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 01:10 AM

Why clutter up the Arctic...

Look at the mess we made of Australia doing exactly the same stupid thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 01:40 AM

SRS:critics of Texas, just don't know it.

L.H. Sometimes you do go on, don't you? :>)

Clinton Hammond: all we need to clutter up the Artic with is oil rigs (I'm battin' down the hatches on that one).

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 02:01 AM

SRS, thanks for the link. I can find no adequate words to describe how that terrible story effected me.

I agree with Mickey, that if a life sentence meant life we wouldn't even need to have this discussion. That actually pisses me off more than some of the rest of this: the fact that people seem to never be held for the length of their sentencing. I also don't understand mixing people of non-violent criminal acts in prison with those of violent acts. Makes no sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 02:59 AM

Gee, Clinton, thanks for those kind words about Australia.

Where Australia is relevant in this thread is that a lot of the convicts that were sent here were sentenced to transportation as an alternative to death.

There was also a problem with convictions to some extent in early 19th century England - there were so many capital crimes that often it was difficult to get a jury to convict. When you look at the list of hanging offences they had then, it is pretty scary.

I did say this in the other thread about the murderer, and I think it is equally valid here:

My problem with the death penalty, apart from the basic sanctity of human life, is with the executioner.

To whom do you give the right to take a human life?

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 10:16 AM

Considering the fallibility of the criminal justice system, and how it STILL tends to levy the harshest sentences on minority offenders, taken in conjunction with the number of convictions overturned these days, it's quite brazen for Texas to continue to execute people.

There is a heated race in Dallas now for the District Attorney's office. He's an entrenched Good Ol' Boy who has had cases thrown out right and left lately because of phony evidence apparently fabricated by a well-paid "informant" (a criminal character who is fingering supposed drug dealers). Only this guy had a real cushy thing going: he bundled up crumbled sheet rock, planted it in the trunks of cars of unsuspecting Mexican individuals (who spoke no English) then got paid big bucks when the investigating officers found pounds of apparent cocaine. Hill's office didn't bother to test the "drugs" and some of these poor guys stayed in jail for months before their attorneys were able to get it tested and cases dismissed. See more here. If his office is as slipshod as this on drug cases, I wouldn't trust any death penalty convictions from there either.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Ringer
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 12:52 PM

"Killing for justice" sounds to me a whole lot like killing for revenge. says toadfrog. I posed the question from which he quotes because the thread-title contains the concept of justice. The thread had had many posters offering their insights into whether or not they would kill and, if so, in what circumstances. Which is not quite what the thread is nominally about. Justice and justifiable have similar etymologies: I had imagined (incorrectly, I now see) that my allusion would be generally understood.

Well, toadfrog, I'd have thought that you, as a lawyer, would have known the difference between justice and revenge. Why does "killing for justice" sound a whole lot like killing for revenge when (I presume) gaoling criminals, fining them, banning them from driving, have no such connotation for you? You seem to equate judicial execution (killing for justice) with killing for revenge because the end-product of both is the death of a human being. Do you make the same equation of a gaol sentence with kidnapping, or of a fine with theft (similar end-products: loss of liberty in the first case and reduction of assets in the second)? It is the essence of justice that the punishment should fit the crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Jim Krause
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 01:37 PM

Is the real question one of justification, or morality? Anything can be justified; killing, theft, arson, vengeance, anything. Morality is quite another question, indeed.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 01:45 PM

Doug - Aye. When Ah git the bit in mah teeth, Ah jist love tae ramble on and on and on. Mah method is tae bury people under an avalanche o' worrrds till they canna remember whit they wis thinkin' aboot in the fairst place. Ah hae a wickedly pompous tongue an' Ah tae a shameless delight in repeatin' mahsel, an' gaun o'er the same worn territory agin an' agin an agin' an' attacking it frae seventeen different directions aw at the same time. Dinna be too harrd on me though, laddie, it's jist a result o' the fact that Ah've been larnin' Scots dialect frae Little John Cameron, an' it's addled mah sense o' proportion some'at.

By the way, Ah posed the question frae this thread tae mah friend Johhny Death, who is an expatriate Scot noo livin' in Canada...

His comment: "Killing's just about ALWAYS justifiable! It's the best way to settle a dispute. If a few million more people were killed we could eliminate all the troublemakers in this country soon enough, and put the place in order right quick."

Johhny is a little tae the right of Genghis Khan, ye see, sae Ah wisnae surprised tae hear him sae that. And he wis in a guid mood too!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 04:53 PM

The main rationale for the state killing prisoners convicted of certain crimes is that this is supposed to deter people from committing the crimes for which there's a death penalty. Essentially therefore it's seen as a bizarre form of communal self-defence.

The odd thing is that countries where the state kills people for murder also tend to have a higher murder rate than the countries where there's no death penalty. One way of explaining that would be to suggest that killing by the state contributes to lowering the killing threshold within the community. Or maybe it's that when you have a community with a low killing threshold, that spills over into its attitude towards the death penalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 05:18 PM

Yeah, McGrath, we have certainly desensitized and compartmentalized society to not only killing but violence as a whole. It's not just a problem of our government taking a hypocritical stand on the santity of life but we also have conservative so called Christains who never got to the new testiment who think that capital punishment is just fine with them. Now, you take it one step further and you have kids playing video games that depict very violent acts and are rewarded in these games for comitting these acts. And you have movies that depict very graphic violent acts by not only the bad guys but by the good guys. It's no wonder that there are so many violent folks. And its no surprise that so many folks hold such anti-human views. "Strap 'em in. I'll pull thswitch myself." Well, I'm not how we can redirect our society but its way off course in this ever shrinking, tribalized, globalized world... Peace. Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 05:52 PM

Hey, L.H., you're doing pretty good with that Scotch talk!I am a bit concerned about myself though because I understood it!

As I commented earlier in the thread, when I posed the question in this thread, I was not considering the legal ramifacations of the deed. Perhaps it is more a moral question as Jim suggests. Likely, if any of us are faced with such a dilema (and some obviously have been), I doubt we would spend much time questioning whether what we were about to do is legal or not.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Cllr
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 10:09 PM

If this thread was called 1)Capital Punishiment is it ever justified. or 2) Abortion is it ever justified.or 3)Euthanasia is it ever justified.or 4)Talking life to preserve self, is it ever justified. you would probably get different answers in each thread (they could all be areas where killing could be justified) How ever philosophically, if you believe in sanctity of life the answer is No.If you don't believe it- then you have a choice. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: GUEST,Celtic Soul, away from Cookies
Date: 08 Mar 02 - 11:47 PM

All I can say is, politics and religion aside, if anyone tries to harm my daughter, I'll kill them. God didn't give me these maternal instincts just to see if I could hammer them down to nil. They're there for a purpose, and so far, have served me well.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 12:08 AM

Cllr; there was no intent to involve the question of capital punishment by a government; Euthanisia; or abortion. Those are separate questions as far as this thread is concerned.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 12:48 AM

Celtic Soul,

Great minds think alike. But understanding that those maternal instincts include desparate measures to protect our children hopefully means that we're frank with our children in teaching them how to protect themselves to avoid dangerous situations. And one way that I've found is a musical approach--my kids have discovered Tom Lehrer. And I've been doing a lot of explaining lately, about the subject matter of his songs. They understand his position regarding dope peddlars, plagiarists, lechers, poachers, murderous children, and many others among his topical song subjects. We discuss these frankly--"Does he approve or disapparove of drug pushers?" and a discussion of how the unsuspecting can become addicted to "free" drugs has been an important discussion (for just one example from many).

To get back to the thread topic, Lehrer doesn't let his murderers off the hook in his songs, though some of them get off pretty lightly (as in The Hunting Song, I think it's called, for one).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: toadfrog
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 02:14 AM

Mr. Eagle: I had thought from your chosen nickname that you were American. From your spelling of "gaol," I gather you are foreign, so perhaps you miss my point.

No. "Killing for justice" is a truly wierd concept. I say that, even though I am not violently opposed to the death penalty, I just think it is unwarranted under most circumstances today. There is one good justification for the death penalty. That is, a dead person is not going to commit any more crimes. I guess that made sence back in the days there were no prisons that would hold people.

But I take it, it is unjust to execute innocent people, and the existence of a death penalty means that, people being what they are, innocent people will be executed. Innocent people will be executed for several reasons, among them being the mentality of people who think "justice" means retribution, or getting even, or vengeance, if you like, and who appear not to care all that much who they get even with.

This is particularly common among Americans. Americans tend not to like the government, or society, so that punishment is not viewed as a defense of society. Rather, it is popular here to justify the death penalty on the ground it gives satisfaction to the relatives or friends of victims to see the villain gasp his last. And I personally find this lynch-mob mentality repellant.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Celtic Soul
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 12:27 PM

SRS...

Most heartily agreed! And thanks for the tip. I hadn't thought of introducing my daughter to Tom Lehrer yet, but now I think it a wonderful idea. My kid is rather bright, and understands sarcasm and satire better than I obviously have given her credit. Thanks!!

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 01:18 PM

Toadfrog - I heartily agree with your point. The more primitive-minded and brutal a population is, the more enthusiastically they will support the death penalty, torture, pogroms, public humiliation, and all other forms of human cruelty. One is reminded of the medieval mob burning innocent people at the stake, the Old Testament believers stoning people to death, the Romans crucifying people by the hundreds or even thousands, the Iroquois inflicting hideous tortures on their prisoners...

It all stems from the same benighted and ignorant mentality...and it's based on fear...and a deep-seated conviction that the "other guy" is actually not really human, so it's perfectly all right to destroy him in some horrible fashion.

It's ugly and sad, even demonic. It puts the lie to those who claim to seek "justice", as they are clearly incapable of it.

That, however, is quite aside from what Doug was asking about when he launched this thread. But it's a worthwhile subject for discussion anyway.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable
From: Mickey191
Date: 09 Mar 02 - 02:47 PM

Little Hawk, was there no part of you that, even in a small way, responded favorably to the execution of Ted Bundy? I was glad to know this human being, who had not a trace of humanity, would no longer be alive. I count his end as comeupance well deserved. You refer to the horrible destruction committed by the state. Horrible, repugnant, repulsive and inhuman are the adjectives that describe his acts on innocent young women.. In some cases he relied on their goodness to meet these victims. Wearing a cast and pretending he needed help, sealed their fate.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 02 - 01:35 PM

Mickey - Yeah, I understand just how you feel about that...

Put it this way, if I had stumbled upon Ted Bundy torturing some girl, and I had a gun in my hand...I would quite likely have shot him (because of my immediate emotional gut reaction to a horrific situation).

In other words, I probably feel pretty much the same way about Ted Bundy as you do.

But I do not see the state as being in the same position as your or me when it comes to such things. The law is not an apparatus that can allow itself to be governed by raw emotional reactions, it has to be dispassionate, logical, and systematic in its procedures.

To allow the state to execute people is to open a very dangerous door that can be abused by people in high places, and frequently is. Dictatorships are run on raw emotion, democracies are not (or should not be).

When it comes to private individuals in moments of stress, that's a completely different matter. They will always act in their own individual ways, regardless of the law, because people have free will. The law does not (or should not) have free will...it follows a predetermined code of behaviour...or it is not a law at all...

It is the state's business to proscecute people like Ted Bundy, and sentence them, and imprison them, but not to hate them. State-sponsored execution is an act of cold, premeditated hatred, not an act of justice...nor an act protecting anyone from anything.

This can readily be observed by the fact that governments which are motivated primarily BY hatred tend to execute an inordinately large number of people...the Nazis being a spectacular example of that...and they ALWAYS feel absolutely justified in doing so. Hitler, Goebbels, and Goering all died defiant and unrepentant, in absolute certaintly of the rightness and righteousness of their failed cause. Such is human mentality.

I will not take the risk of sanctioning executions by any government It's simply too big a risk to allow, and it's not necessary in any case, from the point of view of protecting people or preserving public order. (In cases of great civil strife, war, looting, or rioting as in India recently...it may be necessary on an immediate basis in order to restore order and save lives...that's a different story.)

If you were to shoot someone like Ted Bundy, in a moment of desperate emergency, I'd take a far less dim view of it than if your state government calmly electrocuted him 2 years later.

Yet in our world you would end up quite likely being prosecuted on a serious charge while the state washes its hands just like Pontius Pilate and gets off scot free after committing any number of pre-planned murders behind the facade of "law".

That is hypocritical in the extreme. It's a double standard. It favours the powerful and condemns the powerless. I don't buy it.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 02 - 02:53 PM

The fact that it might make us feel good when some human being, no matter who or why, is killed - that is on eof the main reasons why having the death penalty available is not a good thing. It's an argument that weighs on the abolitionist side, rather than on the side for retention.

As for the suggestion that there is anything "primitive" about support for "the death penalty, torture, pogroms, public humiliation, and all other forms of human cruelty" - it'd be good to think that. But just a glance at the history of the last century and that argument just doesn't stand up. We may have different and more efficient methods, but collectively there is more blood on our hands than in any previous period in history.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: Ringer
Date: 11 Mar 02 - 07:58 AM

McGrath, Little Hawk, toadfrog: I disagree with you so profoundly on this point that where you think black I think white and vice versa. I posted my views on the death penalty in this thread (Click Here and wait a few moments after the index is shown). I don't propose to take up more space in this thread reiterating them.

Subject: RE: BS: Killing. Is it ever justifiable?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 02 - 08:27 AM

"This point" - I was left in the air wondering which point, since a fair number have been made. In particular, even where people agree with each other on capital punishment, either for or against, there are still disagreements about why it is right or why it is wrong.

For example there are people who see capital punishment as a necessary but regrettable act of self-defence by the community, and those who see it as an act of justifiable and laudable vengeance.

Again there are people who see capital punishment as wrong because on balance they believe it actually serves to stimulate the tendency of people in the community to murder each other, and there are those who are against it because they see it as wrong no matter what.

Each of those positions would require completely different counter-arguments. One of the reasons we fall into the habit of arguing past each other rather than with each other is that we fail to take account of such distinctions.