Quote:

Or we kill all criminals and don't have to worry at all.

I don't know how you meant it but I know of people who actually think what you just said is a good idea, and here's my response to them:

I understand the end goal is to stop crime by controlling people through fear so they won't ever want to commit even the smallest crime.

However, If we killed all criminals all of us currently alive would be dead for one thing or another. Secondly it wouldn't be moral, and it would defeat the purpose of living if we have to live by fear. Lastly, I don't think the system would work for a few reasons one it would be revolted against by the people because of it's insanity, second it WON'T stop ALL crimes and some people do commit crimes such as theft to avoid dying in the first place as the only option they have to live. Certain people in impoverished communities where there really isn't enough for all to go around.. they are better off stealing and hoping not to get caught than take a sure death or severely stunted life IF they can manage to scrape by without stealing at all.

I don't think any reasonable group of people would want to live in that world and that's why that more primitive system of governing doesn't exist (governing system like that likely existed at one time in small group sizes, but they dissolve quickly), and who could we trust with such power to decide who broke the law and who didn't the abuse would be horrendous.

Quote:

You murdered someone? You don't deserve the right to live. You intentionally took the life of another human. If your dead, I don't have to worry about "well hopefully he won't get paroled in 40 years for good behavior and kill again."

We're also intentionally taking the life of people in using the death penalty. Clearly we're saying there are justified murders. I think murder should be a last resort even for the most heinous of criminals. Perhaps we can think of a way that they can spend their time productively to pay back society in prison.

I was referring to Anthraxinsoup's comment, and thanks for the clarification Anthrax. However, I do think we are also murderers if we contemplate and then decide to execute someone via capital punishment. Is that not by definition premeditated murder?

Perhaps this murderer, Jim, we have on trial, killed someone, say Bill, because Bill killed Jim's family a year ago. Then Alex comes to kill Jim because Bill was his brother. Are they all justified?

Quote:

No, but if I come to kill you cause you were a PROVEN murderer, you are gonna fucking die, it's just that way

Can we not use me as the example .
So the people in that scenario are all justified and should not be persecuted or what? I'm pointing out by the definition being given out we need to find out first why someone is a murderer before we prosecute, because, if we define all murders as wrong, we'd have to kill ourselves if we use capital punishment. It's obviously murder. It's stupid and contradictory to say all murderers should die by capital punishment.

Basically what you're saying is it's okay to murder a murderer who murdered an innocent. I'm not saying I agree with that, I'm offering it to clarify the position being submitted.

Quote:

I say No. Jim doesn't have the right, and neither does Alex. Thats what the Court system is for. I'm not saying by any means its perfect, but we have to trust in our peers and court system for the fairness. If a Jury of your peers decided your guilty. Then game set match.

What would you do to Jim in this situation? Would he then be murdered (I'm using that term because that's what it is) by the courts? What if the courts, as in the system that's being proposed, would find that Bill did deserve the death penalty that that is clear under the law... would that matter?

I don't totally agree with your reasoning; however, that's a decent response and I see where you're coming from. I had a response but it was getting long so made it shorter but less complete. . Hypothetically speaking we can answer what we "think" should happen in Jim's case, and I'm curious as to what you would rule in that case, just hypothetically what's your gut tell you? I know in practice we'd have to leave it up to the courts but still curious on your conclusion. If you were judge, jury, and hangman what would you rule?

Below I've reworded things that make it more concise and draws into light why we're giving special treatment to a jury over an individual.

Quote:

In my eyes, Murderer would receive the death penalty. Hypocritical? People argue it, but I see it in a different light. I don't see it as "Murder". They have earned that death penalty on them, so hell, I can consider it just that. A "Penalty" against your life. Lose a Turn.

This point is a bit easier to address, I think it's clear it's murder, I don't think there is any room to not call it that. We can give it a new name, but that new name once broken down is the same as premeditated killing a.k.a murder. If you want we can re-word the view being proposed to make it make sense (not contradictory).

Instead of All murderers should have the death penalty. (instead of that view/statement)

We'd have to say All murderers should have the death penalty except those who have killed by consensus of the rational current governing juries decision.

Well we are first admitting there are just murders but we're arguing only the current governing body can commit just murders. Why are we giving special treatment to just the juries decision/the juries Murders? We can argue it's the only time tested and measurable decider (it's hard to measure an individual overall ability to decide fairly in these matters). Though HYPOTHETICALLY an individual may come to an even greater or better understanding of the law and that their rulings are superior to the current governing body IN PRACTICE we can't measure this accurately for individuals and this power would be easier to abuse for individuals. So instead, in real life/practice, we make it only legal for a rational current governing jury to murder.

There are legally just murders, it's that only the government/the courts can legally commit just murders.

I bring this up because it's really important to understand your own beliefs and to break them down as best you can, sometimes we have a belief we can't justify, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, though it does bring it into question.

I don't agree totally with that view (even the revised one) especially not in all cases, but it's reasonable. It'd function better in society compared to other suggestions. Though I still hesitate for juries to just kill all murderers without looking into circumstance, even if it's a premeditated killing. And your desire to let the courts decide Jim's case suggest that perhaps you agree with that as well. (instead of it being an obvious let's give Jim the death penalty).