Answer for: Should "He needed killing" be an acceptable defense in court?
#7 No,
Death should be a penalty reserved for special heinous crimes, decided on by a majority society.
Related products from Amazon (See more...)
The No-Cry Sleep Solution: Gentle Ways to Help Your Baby Sleep Through the Night
$15.95 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself
$15.95 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
The No-Cry Sleep Solution: Gentle Ways to Help Your Baby Sleep Through the Night
$15.95 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself
$15.95 (12/31/1969 05:00 pm ago)
Comments |
Leave a comment
how is that a no answer to the question? "He needed killing" because he was a detriment to society.
Are you serious, or just tryin' to be smart?
i'm serious, it's even in the question description on the main poll. it specifically asks if someone can be so detrimental to society that we are better off without them.
The title of the topic asks "Should 'He needed killing' be an acceptable defense in court?"
It's a yes or no question.
So, by this measure, <i>my</i> answer is a better answer than the others. So come on, why are you bustin' my balls over this,Uewey.
i'm questioning it because you're being self-contradictory... on the onset you're saying "No" but then you're qualifying it by allowing the government to kill people. so it comes back to, if the government gets to say who dies, why can't someone skip the intervening step of a trial and just state that the person killed "needed killing?"
I'm not saiying <i>No</i> to capital punishment.
I'm saying <i>No</i> to using premise "he needed him some killin' ".
isn't the entire premise of capital punishment that the guilty party needs to die in order to somehow either make up for what he did or prevent him from doing something similar in the future? if so, then you're basically saying that the government gets to decide when people are so detrimental to society that they need to be killed.
the second you allow an entity to kill someone, you need to explain why that entity gets a free pass and no one else.
Not the government, the people.
The people get to define how justice is defined, what the punishments are that are dealt by the chosen definition of justice, that means they get to say who gets executed and who does not.
Uewey,
That last post was actually me... my wife... nerver! logs her self out of server. gosh!!
oops did it again, sorry.
That still leaves the question of why the collective people get to say someone needed to die compared to why the individual can decide another individual deserved to die.
Because our society follows democratic principles, and a majority of our society believe (and some have no opinion and don't speak, granted) that capital punishment is agreable in designated circumstances. The group of the society that disagreed in capital punishment are presently in the minority. That is all the reason that is need to say why capital punishment, executed by the leagal system, is allowable and unilateral killing of persons is not.
yes, well society also believes a number of bad things about the death penalty, such as the concept of a death penalty as deterrent doesn't work and that innocent people have been killed under the death penalty in the past five years.
appealing to the majority doesn't really further your argument either. the majority of americans doesn't, for example, believe in human evolution.
does the majority only apply to moral issues (collective moral relativism)?
"Public opinion polls show that nearly two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty, but that is a significant drop from the peak, in 1994, when 80 percent of respondents told Gallup pollsters they were in favor of capital punishment. When asked if they would endorse executions if the alternative sentence of life without parole were available, support fell to 50 percent."
Source:
http://www.washingto...20200146.html
No Uewey, you're correct, my argument was not furthered, but only my belief was expressed.
Interesting point there -- 'Tone.