 |
|
Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. Authorities estimate the four girls – ages 5 to 17 – had been dead for at least two weeks. Jacks told police they were “possessed by demons” and had died in their sleep, one by one, within a week of each other, court documents say. The charging documents identify the children as Brittany Jacks, 17; Tatianna Jacks, 11; N’Kiah Fogle, 6; and Aja Fogle, 5.
Although autopsies are incomplete, the medical examiner’s office reported that there was evidence that Brittany had been stabbed, the charging documents state. There was evidence of binding on the necks of the Tatianna and N’Kiah, and evidence of blunt force injury to the head of Aja and binding on her neck, according to the documents. The three children were dressed in white T-shirts when their bodies were found Wednesday, charging documents state. Brittany’s body was naked but was partially covered by a white T-shirt. An object that appeared to be a steak knife lay nearby, and there was a dried maroon liquid around the body, according to the documents.
There have been several incidents, recently, that have me re-evaluating my views on the death penalty. The man who threw his 4 kids off the bridge 80 ft into the river below, the nut bag who decapitated the girl in South Carolina (who, by the way has already cut a deal for life), and this case. Is there any redemption for people like this?
#68 – “Because you say it is” ain’t good enough. Hence my crack about ’some vague, unspecified mystical reason.’ You have yet to come up with one.
Because the common notion that killing is wrong, is what keeps you alive
Yet as I hammered at Fusio, ‘killing’ is a vague, all-inclusive term. To say ‘killing is wrong’ CATEGORICALLY ASSERTS THAT ALL KINDS OF KILLING – INCLUDING SELF-DEFENSE – ARE WRONG.
If all kinds of killing were the same thing, there wouldn’t be different words for killings done out of different motives, by different parties.
We have the word ‘murder’ which clarifies the fact that we are referring to the UNLAWFUL AND ARBITRARY killing of one or more INNOCENT, UNDESERVING individuals, by (A) PARTY(IES) FORBIDDEN TO DO SO,
We have the word ‘execute,’ which means killing IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, of CERTAIN DESIGNATED CRIMINAL(S), who are GUILTY OF CRIMES WHICH SOCIETY HAS DEEMED THE WORST – PARTICULARLY MURDER.
You cannot make a tricycle equal a Space Shuttle, simply by using the vague term ‘vehicle’ for them both.
And you likewise cannot make execution the moral equivalent of murder just by evasively using the vague term ‘killing’ for them both.
Society does not sanction murder. On the contrary, it is generally regarded as the worst crime, the arbitrary taking of an innocent life.
But society does sanction execution, which IT OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT WERE IT MORALLY EQUIVALENT TO ARBITRARILY TAKING INNOCENT LIVES.
They aren’t the same thing, no matter how often you repeat it. So saying “If this thing is bad, THEN a different thing is just as bad” proves exactly nothing. It is a totally unsupported assertion, no different from “If eating meat is immoral, then eating rocks is immoral.” There is zero logical or semantic connection between the premise and the consequent, which renders it useless.
You are always completely free to believe it, if you see fit. But if you intend to PROVE that execution is morally equivalent to murder, then you must come up with a rational, valid statement which presents an argument – not “It’s so because I said it.”
“The Space Shuttle is the equivalent of a tricycle.” And in a highly abstract and entirely useless fashion, the statement is true. But even an imbecile with rubber gonads adorning his F-150 knows that, in every way that matters in the real world, that statement is ridiculously wrong.
“Both carry people, are steerable, and have three wheel assemblies, one in front, two in back.” At least, that is an ARGUMENT, SUPPORTING my statement, so it can be discussed.
ANyway, enough such horseshit. Fused-brain is an ideologue, just like a religionist denier of evolutionary science, or a PC denier of genetic science, or a capitalist denier of climatological science. The tenets of his beliefs have already been decided and anything that fails to support them is “wrong.”
…and the sad part, what with his brainwashed obstinacy, we never got around to other, substantive aspects of the question… such as, I maintain, as a matter of opinion and personal value judgement, that the creatures who have, like Mr. Pickton, deliberately, brutally, horribly destroyed innocent humans, are themselves NO LONGER HUMANS, by the very nature of their deeds. They have waived membership in human society. They are dangerous animals which deserve to be removed from existence as expediously as possible.
No, (say I), execution, carried out upon those who deserve it (which, yes, IS another issue) is in no way murder.
Keeping Mr. Pickton and his like alive makes every bit as much sense as keeping alive rabid pit bulls who have mauled people to death. They are highly dangerous, they have zero redeeming qualities and the planet is a cleaner, safer, healthier, more civilized place without their existence.
#78–Well–Catshit–In form, not content, as good an answer as can be made I think.
Your analysis though turns your value position on its head? Killing is wrong–but you advocate taking the position that will kill more people? You can’t logically square that position.
You further confuse what a “right” is. The right you, me, 3HC, the majority, the minority all have is not the right to life. Rather, it is a “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that cannot be taken from us except under the due process of law” (to emphasize but still paraphrase.)
There is NO law that says you can not kill. There is only a law that says you can not murder.
I think your basic confusion is pretty well illustrated by 3HC at Post #82 and the tricycle discussion.
If you do fully understand the definitional and logical constraints that you dispense with, then you are left with a truly minority position==killing is always wrong, even to protect yourself. Well, ok. You will either be killed, or have to rely on the moral failure of others around you to protect you and yours.
OFTLO===yes, please continue to contribute with something more than a vanity posting?
#83, bobbo,
There is NO law that says you can not kill. There is only a law that says you can not murder.
While I can’t speak for the entire nation, here, homicide is indeed a crime. It is a defense to have killed for self defense or for the life of another. There are also the mitigating circumstances that determine if it is murder or manslaughter.
You will either be killed, or have to rely on the moral failure of others around you to protect you and yours.
That is the failure in the “pro Death Penalty” camp’s argument. Especially as espoused by Three Empty Heads. There isn’t a”commie” under every bed. There isn’t a crazed gunman ready to shoot me while at the store. There isn’t a suicide bomber ready to blow up my world next time I step outside.
Very few murders are prevented. Criminals will always commit a crime by attempting to not be caught, lest they end up at DU as the stupid criminal of the week. Therefore I can not rely upon your being there to protect me.
It will be the moral upholding of society that will protect our world. People NOT killing people. If I relied upon their moral failures, I could expect to be killed.
Not to be pedantic, but, homicide is neutral and means exactly the same thing as killing.
Mitigating circumstances do not go to the legality/defense of a homicide/killing or the degree of murder or manslaughter to be charged, but rather is only a factor in the punishment to be given for the crime.
While wrong on your terminology, it doesn’t change the logic of your argument.
Heres another whack at your position. Killing is wrong because it debases society making life less valuable which leads to criminals killing more people? AND even if capital punishment lead to fewer deaths you would still be against it because of this debasement. – - – ok.
Well, many people look at the same issue and make just exactly the opposite moral conclusion. Right now, majority still rules.
As I stated before, I actually do think “some” people do deserve to die and that could well be a mixture of revenge or just to intertwined with my view of justice. I don’t think “society” is a “thing” that gets debased or not. People are—not the collective noun. Thanks for the chat. I’ll check back, but nothing new to say?
#82, Three Empty Heads,
You cannot make a tricycle equal a Space Shuttle, simply by using the vague term ‘vehicle’ for them both.
That is a wrong statement. Using the word vehicle to describe both of them is quite proper. True, one can not get more than a couple of inches off the ground and the other can’t do tight corners, however they both convey or transport people.
And you likewise cannot make execution the moral equivalent of murder just by evasively using the vague term ‘killing’ for them both.
Why not? A person strapped to the gurney with the drugs dripping into his arm isn’t being given life. He is having his life taken from him. Therefore, he is being killed as much as the person being gunned down in a drug turf war or smacked over the head by a golf club.
Your error is deciding that inclusive words do not make things equal and therefore there is no comparison. Equality has nothing to do with their definition. Both “vehicles” and “kill” are inclusive words. To Kill means to deprive of life. Homicide, suicide, slaughter, genocide, euthanasia, and execution, are all subsets of “kill”.
Oopps, I didn’t close the bold tag in the preceding post. Oh well, maybe next time I can aspire to be as perfect as TEH thinks he is.
#82, Three Empty Heads
But society does sanction execution,
No one is arguing it is illegal. Execution is a legal punishment in most states. That does not make it right though. For thousands of years slavery was held to be legal. So was second class citizenship for women. Are you proposing that because at one time those laws were sanctioned by society we should once again allow them? Is it right to continue to allow tax exemption for religious properties? What about the Maryland Constitution that forbids Communists and atheists from holding public office?
Legality and morality are not equal. It would be nice if they were but they can’t be. Just because we erred yesterday does not mean that we should continue to err.
ANyway, enough such horseshit.
I am gladdened to see you finally seeing the worth of your posts.
You continue to deny I have made any arguments. You are wrong. You dismissed them because they don’t fall into acceptance of your twisted and false assumptions and definitions. Continually you get all sidetracked into tricycles, IF C IS WRONG THEN B IS WRONG, justifying genocide and those no longer a useful member in society, your “tortie” cat flying a 747, and how much of a deterrent capitol punishment is.
You claim that “self defense” opens the door to execution because it is a deviation. It doesn’t. Self-defense is and should be a contingency. The same as speeding to get to the hospital before your wife delivers or cannibalism after a plane wreck to stave off starvation. Contingency is only a defense, it does not invalidate or excuse a law or moral holding. When there is time and opportunity for reasonable alternatives to be used, a contingency defense will fail. The only reason I argue for its inclusion is to preempt your “what if” argument. Otherwise it is understood.
#85, bobbo,
Not to be pedantic, but, homicide is neutral and means exactly the same thing as killing.
A dictionary can be of enormous help sometimes.
To kill is simply to put to death. Any living life form may be killed. Such as what my wife does with houseplants or when you step on a bug. In fact, that is what they did with the roast (well, the cow) I just took from the freezer for tomorrow’s dinner.
Homicide is the killing of another human by a human. This includes purposeful killing as well as unintentional. It includes infanticide, manslaughter, murder, genocide, and suicide. The act is not always illegal.
Manslaughter is the unlawful though unintended or accidental taking of a person’s life. Negligence may be a difference between an accident and manslaughter.
Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Usually it is restricted to a purposeful, premeditated act.
Mitigating circumstances do not go to the legality … .
Oh but they do. Most traffic fatalities are manslaughter because the at fault driver does not intend to kill or even hit another car. That he is speeding, distracted, or failed to keep his car maintained is the negligence factor that divides this from a pure accident and an avoidable homicide.
A gang banger who purposely takes a gun with him, prepared to use it when he does a home invasion has planned and calculated to commit first degree murder. The home owner that shoots said gang banger in his home is acting in self defense.
Well, many people look at the same issue and make just exactly the opposite moral conclusion. Right now, majority still rules.
And as I have said repeatedly. The law or majority rules do not make something right. They may be legal but still wrong. All I need do again is bring in the slavery issue. Legal for thousands of years, but when was it ever morally right?
Slavery right or wrong is irrelevant. Besides, it is a violation of the human rights of innocent persons.
Mr. Pickton is not innocent. He deliberately committed acts which have renounced his right to be regarded as human. He has waived membership in the human race. Human rights only apply to humans.
He no longer has any right to exist. His continued existence is a danger to society. Therefore he should be exterminated like the worthless, dangerous subhuman vermin that he unquestionably is.
Well–when morality is in essence a group consensus, yes, the majority view is most likely right, or at least right for its times.
We could easily enter another dark age and slavery could be seen as right again. In fact what happens is that it is simply an accepted condition of man and right and wrong don’t even apply.
C’mon==rights don’t flow from natural laws, or god, or pieces of paper. Just group think and a willingness to be hypocritical.
Why didn’t you define mitigation? I looked a few places and couldn’t find anything on point one way or the other. so==basically while there is overlap with other terms==offense of law have ELEMENTS that when met define the crime committed. Then there may or may not be FACTORS in mitigation to moderate the punishment given. Say a person murders someoneelse but he was abused as a child. The murder sticks but he may get the lesser end of the punishment.
#90, bobbo,
C’mon==rights don’t flow from natural laws, or god, or pieces of paper. Just group think and a willingness to be hypocritical.
I don’t know about that. We are getting into a truly abstract area here. We need to co-habitat in order to survive. That entails rules and boundaries. As society has become more complex, so have the rules.
“the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order”.
“civilization presupposes respect for the law”.
Group think? Good point. The key to remember though is even group think can be wrong.
Why didn’t you define mitigation?
I didn’t think it relevant. Your definition is correct while “homicide” and “killing” were not.
Mitigating is the reduction of blame. Note, it is not the elimination of blame.
A mitigating circumstance is a “circumstance that does not exonerate a person but which reduces the penalty associated with the offense.” So if O.J. Simpson truly believes those items were his then that would be a mitigating circumstance in the sentences. If he can demonstrate that they were his is a defense.
#89, the Three Headed Moran,
Slavery right or wrong is irrelevant.
Is it? Do examples that demonstrate your position relevant but disprove it irrelevant?
I made that example as a demonstration that things the majority believe or accept and the law of the land can still be wrong.
The Constitution allowed slavery. The laws allowed slavery. The majority allowed slavery. That still did not make it right. Now to use Three Headed Moran logic, let’s change just one word there (and the tense) to “execution”.
So
The Constitution allows execution. The laws allows execution. The majority allows execution. That still does not make it right.
***
Pickton is truly a sad individual. He is not the first and won’t be the last of his ilk. If I were to deviate from my position it would be the cases like his that persuade me. We can not, however, allow the most egregious of cases to set the bar.