{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
オリジナルの投稿元:Liberty Hub
9/7/2016 11:29:47 PM
71
The Death Penalty
No fancy introduction on this one. I'm going to pose an argument.
I own a bike. If a man steals that bike, I can rightfully take it back immediately.
Can I take the bike back three weeks later, if I see it leaned up against the curb (assuming that I was unable to get it back as soon as it was stolen)? I certainly can. It's still my property.
Is there any amount of time that can pass that would make it morally impermissible for me to repossess my bike?
I would say no. It's my property, and time doesn't change that. The response to a crime does not have to become less severe over time.
Let's apply this idea to another situation.
A man attempts to kill a woman. Let's assume that deadly force becomes a reasonable response for the woman to take. In that instance, she can rightfully kill the man.
This is to say that the man has forfeit his right to life. He can rightfully die because of his own initiation of force.
Three weeks later, does the man still deserve to die? I would argue that he does. His right to life isn't magically restored over time. There's no logical basis for that.
No amount of time could pass where the man (assuming that he escapes all forms of retribution) suddenly doesn't deserve to die.
Discuss. Feel free to discuss the death penalty in general. It doesn't have to be confined to my example regarding moral permission.
-
1 返信
-
Life is only given once. Ruining that one try is the worse possible thing that can be done. Don't seek revenge or harm. Punishment isn't always the right thing. Sometimes the right thing to do is help them become better instead of sentencing life in prison or completely ending it.
-
3 通の返信Humans have, for centuries, millennium even, decided that killing humans is morally wrong. I would have to agree. As such, I cannot morally support the death penalty. No one deserves to have their life cut short by another, even rapists and murderers.
-
Your analogy is deeply flawed. Im assuming in your hypothetical murder the woman doesn't defend herself and dies but since at the moment of the attempt she could have killed him justifiably so then that justifiable action should still be allowed as time should not be a necessary factor in determining a just punishment. Well first and foremost the death penalty has many more factors relating to it than a simple- is X punishment deserved, but we will skip all of those and pretend we are in a perfect judicial system with absolute guilt. Then your two variables you attempt to bridge your analogy across don't relate well for a variety of reasons. 1. A bike is simple property with monetary value that can be bought and sold, while human life is a much more complex construct. The bike has many substitutes or replacements and is able to be returned. 2. In your bike example you are only referencing your singular bike and your ability to return the world to the way things were prior to the crime. You are no worse or better off and the criminal is no worse or better off. There are 2 problems with this: a) You can take the bike back to correct the injustice but you can't bring back a human life. b) Your bike example would need to be structured in a way that your bike is stolen, the crook breaks your bike down for parts (essentially killing your bike). And you would pose the question would it be just to steal the crook's bike he legally owns since he took yours. Then you break his bike down for parts. The end result here is something where 'justice' has made the world a worse place on all accounts for everyone. You no longer have a bike nor does the crook and the only thing you get in return is knowing that the crook doesn't have a bike either. I would pose that this isn't ideal. You still may find that to fit your definition of 'justice' however in your example the analogy seems overly beneficial and optimistic. I might keep going with this later but I've got to sleep
-
1 返信If you cant see the problem here then you might need to go seek mental care, like right now
-
3 通の返信Grind on my ballsにより編集済み: 9/9/2016 4:08:12 PM"He can rightfully die because of his initiation of force." Dude. What kind of logic are you using here? Because I get into a fistfight with someone else does not automatically mean that I deserve to die.
-
1 返信Lordsa Jar-Jarにより編集済み: 9/9/2016 11:54:57 PMIt seems your biggest counter argument is that "it's not revelent towards my hypothetical scenario", the fact is, your scenario isn't relevant to begin with, involing the death penalty as a whole. Now, if we focus solely on your scenario, should he get the death penalty? It comes down to a matter of opinion. I'd say majority would say no, however if he did manage to kill the wife intentionally, then that opinion would most likely change to a yes. Anyway, I fail to see what you're are trying to accomplish with this thread approaching all valid replies with inadequate responses.
-
The system doesn't work so that one relinquishes their right to life. You have the right to [b]defend[/b] yourself. If you are not in danger, i do not believe you should be able to kill someone just cause he committed a crime in the past. They could have gotten therapy, become a better person.
-
3 通の返信
-
9 通の返信Not exactly a great comparison. Taking the life of someone who took a life is not similar to taking a bike that was stolen.
-
19 通の返信Ninja_Lazerにより編集済み: 9/8/2016 3:10:39 AM[quote] I would say no. It's my property, and time doesn't change that. The response to a crime does not have to become less severe over time. Let's apply this idea to another situation.[/quote] You have made a mistake here; put simply people aren't bikes. You have convoluted a defence of the two. More specifically, a specific law as it applies to people (I.E. a right to property) is not the same as a legal enforcement of punishment or an act of self-defence. Here is why: Self-defence is a justification of a criminal act (I.E. Homicide) based on the grounds of necessity; you must prove that your life was in danger (critically), or that you had a legitimate belief of such, and that the person responsible for said belief had the capacity to carry out such harm. If the person has moved on and is no longer in a position to harm you, there is no legitimate threat posed - here there is room for an argument of a perceived threat of mental/psychological trauma. So if a person pulled a knife out and robbed you, you would not [i][b]legally[/b][/i] be able to use self-defence as a justification for hunting them down 3 weeks later, approaching them, and ripping their throat out (Roadhouse-style). As for [i][b]morally[/b][/i] why this comparison is poor, well unlike bikes, people change in an epistemological sense. People have identities, bikes do not. Your bike (property) will remain yours unless it is legally transferred, sold, or reclaimed. People however, change their ideals, behaviours, etc. throughout the course of their lives. Depending on your definition of self (and identity), you may not even be punishing the same person depending on the interval between crime and punishment. Alternatively, ending a person's life eliminates all future actions of the person. A simple thought experiment: Person A commits a crime when they are 18 years old, at 21 they commit a second and third crime and are punished. If the death penalty is used, no further actions are taken. If the death penalty is not used, you can click the spoiler (note: unlike on the forums, we don't have access to such information at the time the choice is made). [spoiler] At age 42, the person saves a bus full of children[/spoiler] Since as humans we are limited, utilitarian calculus such as this is not possible in a morally reliable way. So while retribution for an action may seem desirable, it may end up doing more harm in the long run.
-
2 通の返信
-
That is a good example, but it's only one. The trick is when it should be applied, and if it will actually help. Also that's assuming the death penalty was given to the correct person. The issue of the death penalty is larger than a simple yes or no.
-
3 通の返信
-
9 通の返信I've said it a million times before, and I'll say it again: [spoiler]What is your point.[/spoiler]
-
1 返信Let's apply that logic into other crimes: Rapę: somebody -blam!-s you now your allowed to -blam!- him the rest of his life. Assault: you get in an argument that goes out of hand and you get punched. Now you're allowed to punch him for the rest of his life. Robbery: somebody breaks into your house and steals everything. Now you are allowed to Robb him till he dies. You see, you don't fight crime with crime we are not caveman we have a justice system that takes care of these people.
-
1 返信So the death penalty should be instituted for attempted murder? By your logic If you get into a fistfight, you have the right to sucker punch the individual at any time for the rest of his life.
-
1 返信Is that you, Scyonlinx? [spoiler]Founded The Black Chapter many years ago, a rampant if robotic libertarian.[/spoiler]
-
4 通の返信Depends, sometimes the death penalty is just a easy way out for the defendant, if they're wanting to end their life doing it for them isn't a punishment.
