Printable View
The way I saw Minority Report was the system was a bad thing, and the film celebrated the system being taken down at the end.Quote:
remember minority report? they might've fucked up a couple times, but there was no murder...
edit: Not that Hollywood is always right about this stuff ;) , but I'm with thenm on this one.
Well, the problem is: what is enough proof?
A jury doesn't convict a man to death, unless they are certain he's guilty.
Then, there's almost always an appeal.
So many people that are absolutely, positively sure that the verdict is correct, and still innocent men get sent to death row.
A year or two back, we had a documentary about that here, and unless I'm very much mistaken, they talked about 90 people being released from death row in a one or two year period.
Assuming that some of those were released on technicalities, that still leaves an awfull big amount of innocent people convicted. Again, I'm not against it as such (hell, I'd even push the button myself in some cases), but WHEN can you be absolutely sure?
And who decides that?
One fuck up is one fuck up too many.
Edit: typos
DNA-'proof'and other techniques are developed and carried out
by humans.
So ig a lab-technician screws up :wub: : YOU are screwed. :x
I've read every post and I completely understand all your arguments, however diverse the circumstances, and therefore I am forced to reiterate my question
Is not the deliberate and premeditated taking of any human life under any circumstances MURDER?
That question isn't as easy to answer as you think.
"Murder" is a legal term, invented by the juridical (sp?) system.
According to Oxfords dictionary, it's:
the crime of killing sb deliberately
Someone who commits murder will be a murderer:
A murderer is someone who illegally and intentionally kills another person.
The keywords there are "crime" and "illegally".
If a court convicts a person to death, it's neither a crime, nor illegal because they are the law.
If I were a grunt in some army, preparing for battle, would I be preparing for murder?
Legally, I wouldn't, because the government gave me permission to kill, so it wouldn't be a crime.
In case of a trial:
Are the convicting jurymembers murderers?
The prosecutor?
The judge who rules the conviction?
The executioner who performs the execution?
Or maybe we should start with the cops who catch and arrest a criminal, knowing he will get the death penalty?
It's all a question of semantics, really.
Legally, none of the above are murder, EXCEPT if you convict an innocent man to death, but that's just IMHO.
Then there's the issue of "justifiable" homicide.
Does it exist?
Suppose you would know a terrorist had hired a small plane and was going to crash on a shopping mall, killing numerous people. Would you allow the authorities to take him out before he achieves his goal? If you do, you allow them to kill someone who hasn't committed a crime yet. If you don't, you would be guilty of killing those people by refusing to act in their defense.
What about a pathological killer? Would it be alright to expose other prisoners and guards to his murderous tendencies?
Let's take it a little closer to home.
Suppose (God forbid) that someone killed your wife.
The court convicts him to life imprisonment.
Now, in Belgium, we have prisons where inmates have TV, video, hot plates, fitness equipment, hell, even a PC!!! in their cells. The average prisoner costs € 65.000 a year. (about the same in US $)
Would you like it, if your hard earned tax dollars would get wasted on the guy that ruined your life, while he leads a carefree life? Getting medical treatment that you couldn't afford?
And I'm not even touching euthanasia here......
Good to see so many reasoned opinions and not the ranting I expected from my post
As you have gathered by now I love to provoke responses over emotive subjects
This is now getting to the rub obviously there are reasons why "MURDER" has to be committed
and the taking of life is justified. Self defence, the defence of the realm and the people
also euthanasia should in my opinion be legal (Obviously under extreme regulation)
I personally support the legal status of abortion but hopefully this will remain a separate debate otherwise we could the first Intelligent thought and debate every moral decision since and not get bogged down as much.
I can also see a circumstance where persons involved could justify retribution
If my wife were murdered I would do everything in my power to exact vengeance upon the perpetrator
But would then take the punishment that my country and I as a citizen deemed fit.
And my personal lack of control and morality would not be thrusted upon the state
But even though I know myself capable of murder.
I still vehemently believe that any country that has the death penalty should redefine what it considers decent and civilised
and think again before so firmly positioning itself on 'the moral high ground
'
People will consider me a hypocrite for my varied beliefs
And I hope some do.
Having your own opinions is vital for a healthy humanity
How can we judge what is proper if there is no decent?
What the hell are you talking about?Quote:
Originally posted by Zardoz@5 March 2003 - 18:58
...How dare a Government that MURDERS CHILDREN moralise about TERRORISM
Elaborate a little more for accurate feedback from the rest of the lounge members..
In the meantime, I am sure that some bible enthuasiasts here can direct you to a quote in the bible, that "you shall be judge by your peers", is basically saying that if you screw up in your community, based on the community's laws, you'll be punished accordingly. Even if capital punishment is deemed as the community's law.
I agree with the death penalty...but like Ron, would rather see 9 guilty not be executed than one innocent executed by mistake..
If murder is the Premeditated Act of killing, then surely every Judge that sends an innocent to the Death Chamber is guilty of the same offence.
At the very least it would be Manslaughter, a lesser crime, but still meaning a long length of Prison Service.
Maybe the answer is to take away the Judges immunity to prosecution to these offences.....then he wouldnt impose the Death Sentence unless there was 'no doubt'...instead of the 'no reasonable doubt' used at the moment.
When you're talking about child murder... are you talking about abortion? If you are pro-life then there's something wrong with you. Don't give me any of that "god created a baby" crap. It's better for all of society if there are less unwanted children. If you don't want them killed so much, then why don't you adopt them all?
PMS server, before you start flaming, better read the whole thread.
Zardoz was referring to the execution of 16 and 17 year olds, not abortion..... <_<