I had this conversation on another sight and was wondering what people here thought.

What kind of killing are we talking about here??? People committing acts of murder??? The death penalty (aka, lethal injection), or something else???

I mean any form of killing where the person intentionally did it.

I think that'd be referred to as murder. Best to make your wording as specific as possible. ;)

Well, when you are talking about murder, then of course that is wrong. There is never any good of intentionally killing another.

On the other hand, if you are talking about something like the death penalty, then I'm all for it. If someone murdered another, they should receive the same punishment. I was ecstatic to hear that the person who murdered Brianna Dennison got the death penalty.

Now when it comes to killing animals, that's a touchy subject. And I can argue both ways as to that one. If it's going around killing animals not for the meat, and just for the joy of it, then of course that's completely wrong.

Well, I think neither. Wrong and right are opinions to me. It would entirely depend on a person's point of view.

Could you specify?. Are you talking about killing other people or killing in general including other species?.

Killing in defense possibly bad, possibly justifiable.
Killing in war possibly bad, possibly justifiable.
Capital punishment bad.
Murder really bad.

What am I still missing from the killing types?

Killing people is bad in general. Even the death penalty is wrong, not to mention it costs a LOT of money to give someone the death penalty. It's cheaper to give them life in prision or at least that's what I've heard.

Originally Posted by starnightx

Killing people is bad in general. Even the death penalty is wrong, not to mention it costs a LOT of money to give someone the death penalty. It's cheaper to give them life in prision or at least that's what I've heard.

True. Since it's death, they try each death penalty many times and repeal them all, just to be sure. The cost of that much legal work is much greater than 40 years in a maximum security prison. I do not have the numbers anymore.

Killing without reason is wrong, in my opinion. Doesn't matter the species. Be it human, mouse, plant, bacteria, whatever, if you don't have a reason to kill it and feasibly can keep from killing it, you shouldn't kill it. Since that's where everyone seems to be going, as for the death penalty, I see it as completely unnecessary killing. It does absolutely no good, except MAYBE (not always), in the case of murder (after all, murder's not the only crime you can be executed for, at least not in the US), making the victims' family and friends feel slightly better. I feel for them, but their desire for revenge does not warrant someone's death.

Also, before anyone says anything, yes, I am completely pro-choice. While it is alive, as much as any other clump of living cells is alive, the woman's right to bodily integrity trumps all. She has no responsibility to keep another organism alive at the cost of forfeiting her rights to her body and her life, anymore than I have a responsibility to give up organs to those who need transplants to survive.

Of course, I think all this talk about death tends to make us forget about life, quality of life specifically. In my opinion, that is far more important than death, which is why I am a big proponent of medically-assisted suicide being made legal and available to those who want it, and why I do not begrudge vets who put down animals who would have otherwise suffered greatly, either physically or mentally.

I think it is very situational.

-If someone is going to kill you, you should be able to defend yourself.

-If a person is a serial murderer, they should be killed.

-If a person is a serial rapist, they should be killed.

-If a person is a serial torturer, they should be killed.

-If a person gets their kicks out of killing/torturing animals, they should be killed.

-If a person is a vegetable with no hope of regaining consciousness, they should be killed.

-I believe in assisted suicide if a person is in constant incurable pain.

I don't think any of those are very unreasonable

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

-If a person is a vegetable with no hope of regaining consciousness, they should be killed.

How exactly would you define "no hope"? There are people who are comatose for several years before regaining consciousness, people whose families were the only people standing between them and having the plug pulled, because the odds were so slim. Where exactly would you draw the line?

Originally Posted by Keyori

How exactly would you define "no hope"? There are people who are comatose for several years before regaining consciousness, people whose families were the only people standing between them and having the plug pulled, because the odds were so slim. Where exactly would you draw the line?

There is a difference between someone who is comatose and a vegetable. The term "Vegetable" refers to someone who is in a Persistent Vegetative State or Permanent Vegetative State if they have been that way over a year. Basically someone with severe brain damage, who seeming "woke up" from a coma. They have no independent thought or actions because they are in a "wakeful unconscious" state. People don't generally "wake up" from that state, because it is pretty much the equivalent of brain death.

I also believe that a family keeping someone alive for their own sick endeavors is wrong. Like a prolonged period of mourning or something to make them feel like the person is still there even though they are not really coming back. And doctors generally tell people when their family member will not recover, and people will still choose to keep their body alive for their own reasons, not really for the person in question at all.

Originally Posted by Dr. Nyx

-If a person is a serial murderer, they should be killed.

-If a person is a serial rapist, they should be killed.

-If a person is a serial torturer, they should be killed.

-If a person gets their kicks out of killing/torturing animals, they should be killed.

Why can't we lock them up?

I second Hermes' question, and I also want to say...

Your opinions aren't very situational. :rofl: At all.
There are so many variables that go into each and every aforementioned "crime," and as such you can't simply generalize it down to the bare minimum and claim your viewpoint as situational. In my opinion, anyway. :P

I agree with Philomel wholeheartedly, and medically-assisted suicide is an awesome thing, in my book. And although Dr. Kevorkian may be too controversial/"sleazy" of a name to bring up, his mindset on the concept is something I truly relate to. Especially if you've ever seen any of his interviews, read court documents, etc.; hell, if you saw the new HBO movie based on his endeavors, that'd be enough!

I know Kevorkian crosses the boundary of medically-assisted suicide, albeit minutely. Which is why I know it might become a touchy subject. :sweat:

Originally Posted by Hermes

Why can't we lock them up?

Because there is no reason to keep them alive in a cell for the rest of their lives. There is no hope of them ever getting out of jail, and every day they are alive they are taking resources from people who are still salvageable. A person who is living in jail for 9 consecutive life sentences is never meant to see the light of day again. Why should we feed, clothe and house an inhuman being whom we have decided through law to be incurable?

The purpose of jail is punishment, but the ultimate goal is correction. If the person cannot be corrected, then why keep them alive? It just makes the world less safe for everyone else(in the event of their escape) but mostly other prisoners that may have a chance one of these days to get out and make something of themselves.

It's so silly that human beings are so obsessed with life that they are willing to grant it so easily to people who take it from others.

----------

Originally Posted by Facade

I second Hermes' question, and I also want to say...

Your opinions aren't very situational. :rofl: At all.
There are so many variables that go into each and every aforementioned "crime," and as such you can't simply generalize it down to the bare minimum and claim your viewpoint as situational. In my opinion, anyway. :P

I agree with Philomel wholeheartedly, and medically-assisted suicide is an awesome thing, in my book. And although Dr. Kevorkian may be too controversial/"sleazy" of a name to bring up, his mindset on the concept is something I truly relate to. Especially if you've ever seen any of his interviews, read court documents, etc.; hell, if you saw the new HBO movie based on his endeavors, that'd be enough!

I know Kevorkian crosses the boundary of medically-assisted suicide, albeit minutely. Which is why I know it might become a touchy subject. :sweat:

I guess situational as in those are the situations that I am ok with. lol. I am sure there are some somewhere that I forgot about.

I second what Dr. Nyx said, and I'm adding

If an unborn child causes a significant risk to the mother (as in if the mother will likely die if the baby is carried full term) the mother has the right to kill it without being judged for her character.

If a woman becomes pregnant by her rapist, she should have the right to kill the unborn child.

I don't agree with killing in war as far as the current war goes. Seems majorly unnecessary, but that's a different debate for a different thread.

If an animal tries to kill/injure you, kill it.

If an animal is in serious pain without much hope, kill it.

If you need meat, kill an animal humanely.

Originally Posted by Modernesque

I second what Dr. Nyx said, and I'm adding

If an unborn child causes a significant risk to the mother (as in if the mother will likely die if the baby is carried full term) the mother has the right to kill it without being judged for her character.

If a woman becomes pregnant by her rapist, she should have the right to kill the unborn child.

I don't agree with killing in war as far as the current war goes. Seems majorly unnecessary, but that's a different debate for a different thread.

If an animal tries to kill/injure you, kill it.

If an animal is in serious pain without much hope, kill it.

If you need meat, kill an animal humanely.

Good additions to my thought. My rules were mostly directed at living humans. The only reason why I didn't add the bit about fetuses is because I don't consider them a living human being until they are able to sustain life outside the womb on their own, at which point it is illegal to abort them anyways.

Facade, I've always been interested in Kevorkian but never really spent any time to learn anything about him. I am going to look into this HBO movie you speak of.

And Dr. Nyx, I'd like to first point out that the cost of capital punishment greatly exceeds the cost of housing a prisoner in maximum security prison for 40 years. Past that I just want to say that this argument is primarily based on whether it's okay to kill people. I don't think we as humans should have the right to kill off other humans (unless it's really necessary, but I don't want to get into war and all that). It's just wrong to exterminate someone when we can protect the world from them without actually killing them.
And I don't want to border slippery slope arguments since they often are completely pointless, but here I think I'll walk that line. Who defines when it's okay for capital punishment and when it's not okay? Is there a certain number of rapes or murders that pushes someone past the line? "Oh, he killed 4 people, I guess we should off him."

I agree with your latest post, Hermes. Nyx's opinion creates another slippery slope in that, it's starting with killing as the default and asking for a reason to keep them alive. That is an incredibly dangerous logic to use because, really, how many of us are actually useful? How many of us can, through our actions, justify our consuming resources another could use, someone who might do something worthwhile? Should we use that criteria when deciding who gets organ transplants or blood? Honestly, pretty much all arguments supporting executions can quite easily be used (and, in fact, have been far too many times) to justify mass murder, genocide, and various other crimes against humanity.

Of course, I could go into how we can never be 100% certain that a person is guilty of the crime they're convicted of and thus, you're no more just than the murderers are because you are pointlessly risking the lives of innocent people, but in my experience people like Nyx rarely care about the innocent if protecting them doesn't involve committing violence against those they don't like.

EDIT: Furthermore, how are you judging them "incurable"? We don't make an ATTEMPT to reform murderers or really, criminals in general. We send them to a place that tends to make people worse than they were when they went in and, unless they can convince a lot of people who want to think they're the Devil incarnate that they have mental instabilities, they cannot receive much, if any, psychological help. Then we just throw them back out in the world with no assistance and no support. You have no right to judge them as "incurable".

Regarding animal torture: We know that most animals raised for meat are raised and subsequently slaughtered in ways that virtually no one would consider humane - not because it has to be that way, but because it's more cost-effective. Do these people get a pass? Why or why not? If not, what sort of penalty should they face, and should it be harsher or less harsh than what a run-of-the-mill animal abuser would get?

Regarding abortion: Is it acceptable to kill a fetus? Does it matter whether it's in the first, second, or third trimester? If it's unacceptable, what sort of punishment should the doctor and patient face?

Regarding rape: Is it acceptable to kill a person while they're attempting to rape you or someone else? Is it acceptable to kill them afterward? What if the rapist is a teenager?

Regarding assisted suicide: Is it wrong to kill people who want to die, but can't manage to do the deed themselves? Does it matter whether they're healthy, chronically ill, or terminally ill? Does it matter whether they're 20, 50, or 75? What if a person has a debilitating disease that severely limits their quality of life, but doesn't cause actual pain? What if they suffer from depression and, despite trying every single treatment available, simply are unable to experience happiness?

Originally Posted by Hermes

Facade, I've always been interested in Kevorkian but never really spent any time to learn anything about him. I am going to look into this HBO movie you speak of.

And Dr. Nyx, I'd like to first point out that the cost of capital punishment greatly exceeds the cost of housing a prisoner in maximum security prison for 40 years. Past that I just want to say that this argument is primarily based on whether it's okay to kill people. I don't think we as humans should have the right to kill off other humans (unless it's really necessary, but I don't want to get into war and all that). It's just wrong to exterminate someone when we can protect the world from them without actually killing them.
And I don't want to border slippery slope arguments since they often are completely pointless, but here I think I'll walk that line. Who defines when it's okay for capital punishment and when it's not okay? Is there a certain number of rapes or murders that pushes someone past the line? "Oh, he killed 4 people, I guess we should off him."

The reason capitol punishment is so expensive is mostly court costs. There is no real reason for a court case to be drug on as long as they do. We just need to create a more efficient system. And as far as the whole "slippery slope" thing, I personally think one is enough circumstances permitting. And they could also be examined by psychologists to see if there is any chance of redemption for them. Some people are just demented to their core, and there is no reason they should be around.

----------

Originally Posted by Philomel

I agree with your latest post, Hermes. Nyx's opinion creates another slippery slope in that, it's starting with killing as the default and asking for a reason to keep them alive. That is an incredibly dangerous logic to use because, really, how many of us are actually useful? How many of us can, through our actions, justify our consuming resources another could use, someone who might do something worthwhile? Should we use that criteria when deciding who gets organ transplants or blood? Honestly, pretty much all arguments supporting executions can quite easily be used (and, in fact, have been far too many times) to justify mass murder, genocide, and various other crimes against humanity.

Of course, I could go into how we can never be 100% certain that a person is guilty of the crime they're convicted of and thus, you're no more just than the murderers are because you are pointlessly risking the lives of innocent people, but in my experience people like Nyx rarely care about the innocent if protecting them doesn't involve committing violence against those they don't like.

EDIT: Furthermore, how are you judging them "incurable"? We don't make an ATTEMPT to reform murderers or really, criminals in general. We send them to a place that tends to make people worse than they were when they went in and, unless they can convince a lot of people who want to think they're the Devil incarnate that they have mental instabilities, they cannot receive much, if any, psychological help. Then we just throw them back out in the world with no assistance and no support. You have no right to judge them as "incurable".

That slippery slope can be easily cured by thinking of the types of people who could potentially be of use. Your average person who floats through life doing odd jobs is of use to society in a way. And there are a ton of people that could have jobs in the sense that they are capable of completing a task somewhere. Even short term prisoners can be of use by doing things in jail(such as the group that performs musicals and dances, and the old fashioned license plate makers).

Now while the people spending their whole life can do the same thing, we obviously don't need them with the huge number of prisoners available. So the people going to spend the rest of their lives in jail only serve a risk to the people who may eventually get out.

I am not really a violent person, as you seem to think. I am a practical one. The idealism that everyone should live and that everyone can be cured or "saved" is just that, an idealism. The world isn't exactly a forgiving place and I don't think we should be.

Nyx, the reason the court costs are so high is to absolutely guarantee the guilt of the people being put to death, not because the system is inefficient. There are multiple retrials and hearing and appeals always, because like Philomel started getting at, you can't be 100% certain of guilt really, and even then there is a lot of other stuff to consider. Like anything else in the world, killing does not instantly mean someone is evil.
As to psychologists examining these people, who decides what is considered demented? The psychologists? The line between demented and not demented is even more wide and vague than the line of how many crimes justify killing the criminal.
And while we're on the idea of one murder being enough, we're back to what I brought up before that bad is not digital, it's not yes or no. There are various motivations for everything. And that takes us back through the loop again, because who decides what motivation constitutes evil and justified? I mean, cold blooded murder is probably pretty evil, and self defense is probably pretty alright, but there's a lot of in between. Even within self defense there's many, many questions.

Now, if you're practical, why don't you suggest applying life sentence prisoners to labour? While we're all talking about society here, why not be practical and instead of eliminating these criminals put them to use? Surely that's more reasonable than killing them, if we're being practical.

I just want to say that people that're deemed "demented to their core" are definitely worth keeping around, and here's why.

Back in the heyday of the guillotine, at the height of its usage, it was regarded as a tool to exemplify what would happen to the general public if they were to do what the beheaded did. It was a way of subduing and controlling the masses, really; once you saw someone's head roll down that platform, you'd think twice. Guaranteed.

Now that such vicious things aren't really commonplace in the developed world, the concept of imprisonment serves as that pseudo-guillotine. The death penalty pales in comparison, in my opinion. An average citizen's stomach will turn at the mere thought of being in jail for upwards of 25 - hell, even ten - consecutive years. The threat is there, and it's more daunting than just death. Again, just my opinion.

Anywho, some of these "felons" serve as worthy examples of a range of mentalities, walks of life, etc., etc.; if we'd simply slaughtered them all, there wouldn't be downright amazing movies like, well... Silence of the Lambs, for instance. Bad example, but it's an excellent portrayal of the more gruesome spin on things. This is pop culture, and it's showing us the grit of others' existences, for Bob's sake! If that doesn't scare the wits out of people, and subconsciously sway their ways of thinking to a more "ideal" way of thinking, then I don't know what does.

And, as per usual, I find myself agreeing with Hermes. D00d, you're the epitome of cool. :drool: