We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Is it wrong (for a goverment) to kill a man?
| 103 | 16583 |
That's all you get.
I want to see where you all will take this before I jump in.
Now get to it.
- 103 Replies
No. It's not wrong. Amoral, not wrong.
I'll put a bullet in somebodies head if it meant saving even just two other lives, and never have remorse, even if they sent me to death row for it.
Random killings for no reason is extremely amoral, but it is not 'wrong.' There is no wrong. The person doing it thinks it's right, while to us it's wrong. Where is the story really at?
Life is a gray line, not two black and whites.
Alright, now for the second part. A flip-side of the same coin, if you may.
Is it wrong for a government to kill a man?
Is it wrong for a government to kill a man?I am once again going with a qualified no. I hold a government to the same standards as I hold a person. It can be necessary to kill (war, self-defense) and it is not wrong to do so in those cases. In other cases, killing should be avoided. Killing for revenge masquerading as justice is as wrong for a government to do as it is for a man.
Is it wrong for a government to kill a man?
Again it depends on the circumstances, and again, I believe that the 'golden rule' should be applied in all cases.
But to further flesh this out:
The death penalty, should not be condoned by a civilised society. It is neither necessary or moral. Life in solitary confinement is punishment enough for even the most serious offenders. Secondly, it is immoral because by our own defined moral standards, killing is wrong. Furthermore, the judicial system is supposedly a body which focuses on reform not punitivism. Killing people as a punitive measure is a clear contradiction of this.
The other most common use of governmental force is war. Defensive wars are always justifiable. Offensive wars are almost never justifiable, but it entirely depends on the circumatsnces.
The other most common use of governmental force is war. Defensive wars are always justifiable. Offensive wars are almost never justifiable, but it entirely depends on the circumstamnces.
Wolverine from X-men:
The best defense is a good offense.
Now is it justifiable?
Now is it justifiable?
Surpirsingly, cliches used by fictional characters don't often apply to reality.
The death penalty, should not be condoned by a civilised society. It is neither necessary or moral. Life in solitary confinement is punishment enough for even the most serious offenders. Secondly, it is immoral because by our own defined moral standards, killing is wrong. Furthermore, the judicial system is supposedly a body which focuses on reform not punitivism. Killing people as a punitive measure is a clear contradiction of this.
What about the fact that life in prison neither helps the man nor helps society. It is a drain on resources to let someone with enough crimes for a death penalty live in jail for the rest of their life.
What about the fact that life in prison neither helps the man nor helps society.
It's not meant to help the man or society. Reform should be the focus of the judicial system. But some criminals are beyond help, and undeserving of it. If you take someone's life intentionally and get caught, you shouldn't expect anything less than an almost total removal of your freedoms.
As for the question of resources, it actually costs more to execute a prisoner due to the massive cost of multiple appeals courts than it does to keep them alive. I can't find the link that proves this right now, but bear with me, I am sure I read this somewhere. Just give me a minute to scour the web.
it actually costs more to execute a prisoner due to the massive cost of multiple appeals courts than it does to keep them alive.
Thats one of the many problems with the current system, I don't like your ruling I want to go again and waste more money.
Just for you information:
It can cost as much as $75 a day to keep a prisoner in jail. Thats $27k a year per prisoner of tax payer money.
The thing is Moe, as I understand the US system, it is simply due process that defendents have the right to multiple appeals before they are executed. Whilst it may seem arbitrary or wasteful, it is entirely right that due process is followed regardless of the cost. If you are going to execute someone, you have to at the very least give them every chance to prove their innocence. Better yet don't execute them at all, and save yourself the money, and maintain your principles. If the right to life is in your constitution, how can you argue that it is ok for the government to take it away, even in such extreme circumstances?
If all other things are equal, killing a person disrupts the equality, because one person decides that they shall live, while the .other shall die
But no, not everyone is equal.
A criminal is a criminal, I believe they can change yes, but the difference is they crossed the line from:
1. Being desparate (e.g robbing something for money)
2. The bad revenge
3. How they grew up (that is half-valid, it does contribute though)
4. Killing without good reason (for robbing them or anything that isn't self-defence or the GOOD revenge).
The difference is they may not have thought of consequences, or their moral standard. I doubt alot of people think about their moral standard, usually until it's too late.
I'm 13, and to be honest I am a moral person, I've done some bad things, and I've licked my wounds. I didn't do anything serious, and as a child you can't expect them to be perfect (They're young, it takes a while).
Hypocritical since if someone says "No one's perfect." I often say "So you can't try to be, can you?". And I mean a real perfect, not someone who is good at everything or something. But someone who has the moral standard and intelligence to tell right or wrong.
And because of their intelligence and morals, they probably would know a diplomatic solution would be best with similar people. Debating over it is much better because you get more perspectives and personalities, which can suit everyones needs.
That was a long rant, and I think I learned a thing or two from what I had just said, point is you can't ask this question unless you give:
1. Situation.
2. Backrounds from YOUR perspective.
I hope you all read this, good day people. And feel free to comment on my profile if you think I'm wrong - I'd gladly talk about it with you
- H
Okay I also read further up about killing people about moral standards. It depends what your standards are.
The ones I presented I believe are the shortest principles a person shall have. And I am fairly against stating them higher, simply because it gets a little unfair to the less disciplined people.
If a country develops with little crime (thieves etc) then maybe the standard for robbery should be higher, it would provide more comfort for the actual good people and the bad ones, in a country with so little crime that must be doing good, has no good reason to rob.
Which also brings me to something else - just so you know, I don't think as robbery as robbing something, I think of it as doing a bad thing for yourself. That's a pretty solid thing I follow, and I also don't believe in "bad but necessary", if it's necessary to do a bad thing, it's a good thing. Or at least neutral.
So, I hate - hate people who just don't think and do what they want for themselves, which, essentially to me, I feel like putting up the death penalty. But in this current society not alot of people don't try being perfect in the way stated above, thus some mercy must be taken. The moral standards I set earlier should apply to this "non-perfect" world, simply because it will clamp down on crime, present some real moral standards from the higher-ups.
Oh and, costing more to execute a prisoner than to keep him alive? Well. That's a major problem:
1. It shouldn't cost as much as it does anyway.
2. Costing more than keeping them alive is rediculous for economy.
For 1, it's true, instead of bringing X judges and Y civilians, just bring it to a private court, a judge with a rulebook (for a real fair trial, in my opinion (tentative on this sort of thing though)), defenders, and the people accusing them.
Once presented evidence and so, put it down to what he had did:
1. Murder?
2. Did he do it selfishly without seeming to put any reason or logic into it? (By that I mean did he know him / her, did he present himself to him / her and asking for what he wanted first?)
3. Were there other ways to achieve what he wanted?
If if were murder, and 2 and 3 were valid, kill. He pretty much done an exceptionally bad thing, for himself, even though there was another way.
We shouldn't even have to put up with killers anyway, we're expending our resources to keep people who are doing MINUS help to the country, a lose-lose situation really. I mean, clamp the moral standards even more if we're poor, because we shouldn't tolerate people who could be helping, being selfish and doing X for Y.
But! If reasons are good, self-defence, good revenge (which I am still tentative about some of these situations), etc. Then they should be let off, because they either:
1. Prevented something bad happening to them, in a fair circumstance.
2. Stopped a bad person doing a (supposeably) good thing (good thing = living).
I'm done, sorry for spam, goodluck and goodbye!
- H
Of course is wrong kill a people, even if it is a crminal, he should have a second chance or even a third. The people weren't born to be killed, a person has a objective, and it isnt be killed.
Thread is locked!