It's simple---If you're for the Death Penalty, then you're for legalized murder.

[trumad]

When you kill someone purposely, is that not murder?

AND here's a really good one--- say you kill that person with the so-called legal method and later find out that the person was innocent. Wouldn't that be considered the truest form of murder and shouldn't those who committed the act be charged with murder?

[renie408]

1. Ummm....That's about it.

I am not sure that even somebody who supports the death penalty would argue that one.

As for your hypothesis, I think that the state is protected against such things because it is presumed that they are working with the best knowledge available to them for the best good of the people. NO, I don't believe that. But I think that's pretty much how it works.

[trumad]

2. I agree

It's funny though because if you look at it from a religious point of view...me-thinks God hasn't written in that caveat.

[zanne]

4. Yeah, but...

Fundies will tell you "An eye for an eye", and unless you're a biblical scholar, you won't win the argument. They have all their biblical references lined up.

[renie408]

7. Well, If you are a Christian, I thought New Testament trumps Old Testament. n/t

[zanne]

16. I have no knowledge of any testaments, new or old.

I'm not religious. I'm just saying that a Fundy (even a rightwing "pretend" fundy) will use bible quotations as "proof" that they're right. You can't argue with them about the validity of the bible, and they've memorized just enough scripture to argue with you.

[Hamlette]

24. tell the fundies that neither our laws nor our morals come from the Bible n/t

[madeline_con]

43. Thay REALLY hate that! n/t

[Zodiak]

35. Yes they do

New Testament for their friends

Old Testament for their enemies.

[madeline_con]

42. You can invoke, "Turn the other cheek."

Then you have a cofused fundie who starts telling you you're going to hell, their last resort before refusing to speak to you again. ;)

[NoPasaran]

3. Damn! I wonder why no one has ever thought of this argument before!

Complex issues are always best explained in binary terms.

[renie408]

8. Be nice. n/t

[trumad]

18. Well that's simple...I'm just not as brilliant as you....

must be wonderful being the smartest in the class?

[NoPasaran]

48. Wait! I thought you were the smart one!

I was confused because I kept seeing shades of grey. Your brilliance cut through all that by putting things in black/white terms!

[renie408]

52. Hey, I have learned gray is not a very popular color. n/t

[NoPasaran]

55. To say the least !!!

[aquart]

5. Well, no. It's not.

Murder is unlawful killing. "Thou shalt not commit murder" is the commandment, NOT thou shalt not kill. The Bible goes on to list many many lawful killings, crimes for which death is the punishment.

Killing in war is generally not considered murder, but war crimes include murder.

But continue to be simplistic and inaccurate in your thinking. It's so useful.

[gollygee]

6. Why have I always heard, "Thou shalt not kill"

if it isn't kill?

I'm not trying to be a smarty-pants - I'm ignorant about these matters and I'm wondering what the bible actually says. Does it say kill but mean murder? Or does it actually say murder and not kill? Is it different in different translations?

[hack89]

13. Apparently in the New Revised Standard Version it says murder

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments


Here is a good discussion of the issue.

http://atheism.about.com/od/tencommandments/a/commandment06.htm

[gollygee]

19. Ah. I see.

thanks :)

[Missy M]

11. It depends on whose interpretation....

I was taught "Thou shalt not kill" and I have read both interpretations in my search. Was it changed to "Thou shalt not murder" to accommodate the death penalty and war, etc. I go with what I was taught and the death penalty is killing, plain and simple.

[aquart]

29. It's good to stick to those early teachings.

Don't the Jesuits say, "Give me a child till the age of eight, and I will give you the man"?

So no reason to let fuller or more accurate information alter your thinking or your course in life. You've been taught.

[ashling]

14. LOL

But continue to be simplistic and inaccurate in your thinking. It's so useful.

[trumad]

20. OK..

now apply that if the state killed an innocent man/woman... would it be murder then?

[aquart]

30. It would be an injustice. It would be a failure of justice.

But in your oh so clever sophistry I don't think even you imagine executing the hangman or the jury or the judge...which would have to done if it were murder. Or were you planning to write laws with such penalties in your zeal to make everyone fearful of using the death penalty?

BTW, ever swat a fly?

[trumad]

39. Actually yeah.

[madeline_con]

45. Nitpicking add so much to the discussion, too. n/t

[renie408]

9. Hey, man, tough room. n/t

[Toots]

10. I guess Assisted Suicide is out of the question then?

I am against the Death Penalty but for Women's right to choose and also a terminally ill patient's right to choose. :shrug: I guess because I am not totally consistant I am ignorant...

[Buzz Clik]

17. Good post.

We all face moral dilemmas as we navigate through our lives.

The last thing we need is someone in our grill attempting to condemn us for our opinions.

[aquart]

31. I knew a man who was given a death sentence by his doctor.

No reprieve, get your affairs in order, if there's something you really want to do, do it in the next few weeks...

And then the doctor gave him the greatest gift: he told him he would have enough painkiller to do whatever needed to be done. He gave him the option of suicide. He gave him back control of his own life.

We had the most wonderful day after that.

[TahitiNut]

51. I think of it as a question of sovereignty.

A fetus exists in the sovereign 'territory' of a woman's body. While I may disagree with her choice to have an abortion, it's moot - even if I were the father. Whatever influence I might have on that choice is called 'diplomacy' - just like the influence France might have on the choices of governance within the sovereign territory of the US.

Likewise, my life is my own. It can belong to no other. If I'm not sovereign over my own life, I'm sovereign over nothing. If I were to choose suicide over (whatever I might regard as) suffering, that's my choice to make.

I see nothing inconsistent in such positions. Might does not make right.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[trumad]

21. Are you for the death penalty?

are you?

[renie408]

25. Dude, I think he is just pointing out that your argument is a little simplistic.

You have been here awhile. You have to have gotten this kind of thing before.

[Buzz Clik]

15. Sure. That works for me.

I support the death penalty. If you call that legalized murder, so be it.

Was I supposed to get all hysterical by your pronouncement?

[trumad]

40. So you support a system that isn't 100 percent accurate?

You're OK if they fuck up every once in a while?

[RB TexLa]

22. So every person who has purposely killed someone in a war is guilty of murder

murder is killing someone unjustly. There are times when a person purposely kills someone and it is just.

[Hamlette]

23. murder, by definition, means a killing with "no legal excuse or authority"

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1303&bold=||||

Your argument would make any abortion murder, killing someone in self defense murder, killing someone in a traffic accident at which you were not a fault...murder.

Murder has a definition and it doesn't come from the Bible.

[cosmik debris]

28. I believe the OP started with an argument

Then looked for a definition to fit the argument. That is the easy way to be right all the time. But it doesn't hold much water in the real world.

[LoZoccolo]

26. "When you kill someone purposely, is that not murder?"

Not necessarily.

[mitchum]

27. No, it is legalized killing...

murder is a LEGAL term and no matter how much one insists upon the "common definition of murder", that definition is incorrect.
You may rightly disagree with capital punishment, but please don't play fast and loose with the language (due to ignorance or an agenda)

[aikoaiko]

32. okie dokie, if you say so.

So to answer your questions.

You:When you kill someone purposely, is that not murder?
ME: Not always. Self-defense is an example where most people don't consider it murder. Do you considers someone defending themselves with lethal force to be a murderer. It sounds like.

You: AND here's a really good one--- say you kill that person with the so-called legal method and later find out that the person was innocent. Wouldn't that be considered the truest form of murder and shouldn't those who committed the act be charged with murder?
ME: As long as due process was followed and the constituents of the due process had a say in it, then its not murder even if the wrong person is killed.

Of course, I'm sure we have different opinions on this matter.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Thoughts on the Death Penalty.

I will believe in the death penalty when you will prove to me the infallibility of human beings.
--Marquis de Lafayette

As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder.
--Coretta Scott King


We are not so mad as to think that we shall create a world in which murder will not occur. We are fighting for a world in which murder will no longer be legal. -Albert Camus

It is well-nigh obvious that those who are in favor of the death penalty have more affinities with murderers than those who oppose it.
-- Rémy de Gourmont (1858-1915), French essayist, novelist, poet, playwright and philosopher.

«There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.»
-- Montesquieu (Charles de Secondat) (1689-1755), French political thinker and philosopher who articulated the theory of the separation of powers.

May the bad not kill the good,
Nor the good kill the bad
I am a poet, without any bias,
I say without doubt or hesitation
There are no good assassins.»

-- Pablo Neruda (1904-1973), Chilean writer, Nobel Prize winner (Literature).

«And so to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honour, and peace, until the Gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.»

-- George Bernard Shaw.

[k_jerome]

34. your last point is my reason for opposition. too many mistakes made. nt.

[AnnInLa]

36. Euthanasia?

"When you kill someone purposely, is that not murder?"

When you get to be an oldster as I am, you will start considering the "death with dignity" movement seriously. Should participation in true "mercy killings," such as a spouse helping a beloved one to die with dignity, merit the term "murder?"

If you take your own life, for your own reasons, is it murder? If you try to take your own life, but don't succeed, should you be termed an attempted murderer?

Are you an absolutist, like the repukes? Is ALL life sacred, to be protected by law in any circumstances? Do circumstances and context matter, or is "killing" purposefully always murder?

Like everything else, semantics is important. Kill = Murder in all cases?

IMHO, things are not that black and white. Every society defines murder and "kill" in different ways. Intent is usually taken into account. So, if you killed someone by negligence, (driving while drunk for example), but you had not intended to kill anyone, should your actions require the same consequences as someone who had set out to kill someone intentionally?

I watched Polly Klaus's (sp?) father explain why he supports the death penalty. He said that the murderer of his daughter sat in his cell every night, and in his imagination, he raped and murdered Polly over and over again, every night, every day. That's how he gets "pleasure" now. Mr. Klauss said that he wanted to stop the continuous murder and rape and suffering of his daughter. I have a daughter and a granddaughter.....I feel the same as Mr. Klauss. But, there are other circumstances that I would not like to see a murderer put to death purposefully. So, is the context of the killing important, or is all life sacred and should be protected at all costs?

If a person murders someone I love, then I would lose no sleep if he/she has to pay the ultimate consequence. However, if someone I love kills someone else, I would fight forever for his/her right to live rather than pay that ultimate consequence. So, my view of the death penalty is selfish/schizo....I see gray. I see gray everywhere.

I really don't see how people can be absolutists on these kinds of questions.....it assumes there is a Universal Truth, that all purposeful killing is murder. I don't believe in Universal Truths....I think "truths" are defined by the socities we live in. And, if they are defined, then each occurence must be taken in context. (This rambling probably makes no sense at all, but it is how I feel, and I'm just expressing it badly, and don't want to argue about it...argument is futile...you either feel one way or the other.)

[trumad]

41. absolutists

Well let me ask you... would I be absolutely right to say that mistakes could have been made and innocent people were put to death?

[AnnInLa]

46. Of course you would be right

Would you call it Murder if an elderly man, who has watched his wife suffer with incurable cancer, decides to give her an overdose of pain pills, in order to speed up her death and spare her suffering? If you answered "no" that it would not be murder, even tho it was "purposeful," then you have to change your original supposition, in your OP, that Purposeful Killing Always Equals Murder (or something like that.) In fact, purposeful killing does not always equal murder....it depends on the context. It depends on how each society defines "killing" and murder.

[trumad]

50. I get your point but me-thinks it's apples and oranges..

Morally that is.

[AnnInLa]

54. I get your point also, but

I think the term "morally" means that you think purposeful killing is immoral. Immorality implies an Absolute Truth. My point is that there are no Absolute Truths....there are only "truths" as defined by each society. What is moral or immoral is defined. There can be no absolute truths unless you admit the exitence of an God, for where do Absolute Truths come from?

Cannibals, who see eating their captured enemies, as something other than murder....they see it as giving themselves some kind of power. That is what is defined by their society. Would you consider them murderers? That would be in the context of what Westerners define, not in their cannibal society.

All I am saying is that for me, I cannot say absolutely, that all purposeful killing equates to murder. I cannot even say that State-Sanctioned killing equals murder. So, I think that in certain circumstances, in certain contexts, I would support the death penalty.

[renie408]

53. Wait, I am confused again. Are YOU the absolutist? n/t

[stray cat]

37. Same argument pro-life advocates use

[Sugarcoated]

38. I'm against the death penalty

because sometimes they get it wrong. That one simple reality is enough for me.

[trumad]

44. Exactly...

but those who are for the death penalty apparently have no problem with that.

Oh but they'll say they do...but then they'll rationalize that it's for the better good.

Well I say bullshit. I can pretty much guarantee that if it was their innocent ass on death row, they'd change their tune in a hurry.

[Sugarcoated]

49. No one thinks they'll be one in that position

but it can happen and has happened. All it takes is an overzealous prosecutor, a bribed judge, planted evidence, a wrongful ID or just plain coincidence. I firmly believe being in a cage for the rest of ones life is way more punishment than death.

[pitohui]

47. words have meaning -- the DP can't be murder

murder is extra-judicial, the death penalty is applied after someone goes through the court system and the legal process

same reason a soldier can't be tried for murder even if he is firing and attacking in a war, rather than just defending when fired upon and attacked first, presumably his country has gone through a political process and concluded that war was the only alternative

i don't support the death penalty for the reason you mention in passing -- i believe that innocent people are frequently convicted of crimes they didn't commit, DNA tests have proved that eyewitness testimony is not worth a damn because people don't remember what strangers attacking them look like, memories formed in times of extreme terror are not properly formed

in the case of saddam, it was an iraqi trial and i am not telling the iraqis what to do when we in the usa still have a death penalty

saddam was guilty, who disputes it, i think we should be more concerned about cleaning up our legal system which has a KNOWN problem of convicting innocent people

a man in my parish was in prison 15 years for a rape that DNA showed to be committed by his brother but "they" all look alike, the central park joggers were cleared by DNA, it goes on and on with rape, the trouble w. murder is once the victim is dead and the convicted person executed there is no will to set the record straight but i bet there are many many cases of people executed wrongly right here in the usa that we need to look at before we worry about the middle east where the death penalty is widely accepted for way more trivial crimes than mass murder and genocide

i'm a lot more pissed about guys being killed in saudi arabia over a gay blow job than i am about saddam