Malchik Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 Forgiveness does not require an apology it requires understanding. If you really understand why someone acted in a particular way you will forgive. It does not mean that there should be no reparation or that the perpetrators should go unpunished but it will take away the revenge element of the sentencing that makes you as bad as the offender. If you enjoy watching somebody die it puts you at the same level as a murderer. I would be wary of what you say about war. If soldiers can be excused murder then so can the soldiers fighting against them. If those soldiers are guerillas and use tactics a regular army doesn't like they get labelled terrorists and different rules are applied to them. I'm not talking here of acts of terrorism against a peaceful society but against an illegal invading force. You might like to ponder that for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyGilbert Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 war and execution I think are a different matter. A soldier has the right to shoot down a threat but not to execute them. (my poinion) war is ard to stay out of when your on the field with enemies trying to shoot you but you have the choice whether or not you want to execute a helpless person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I agree, war and execution are fundamentally different. In war you have to kill that person as a matter of self-defense. An execution is killing someone either as punishment or to pre-emptively prevent any percieved threat from that person. The key difference is that the threat stopped with an execution is pre-emptive, in war that threat has been realised as that person is attacking you. In my opinion, revenge, greed, anything short of immediate defense is a morally abhorable reason for murder. As seen with other nations, the death penalty is not needed to maintain order. Sure, the U.S. is not exactly like other nations, however, several states have also adopted this policy and we don't see seriel killers running around at will. In the modern era, I do not think it's necessary to have executions. There isn't one good reason for it. It doesn't prevent those who kill from killing. Any satisfaction the living victims recieve is temporary at best. The legal system has abused it in the past (not intentionally, but in the future?). It costs more. Finally, our legal system has holes that allow murders to escape legally which is nothing compared to those who escape from prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Indoril Nerevar Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I agree, war and execution are fundamentally different. In war you have to kill that person as a matter of self-defense. An execution is killing someone either as punishment or to pre-emptively prevent any percieved threat from that person. The key difference is that the threat stopped with an execution is pre-emptive, in war that threat has been realised as that person is attacking you. In my opinion, revenge, greed, anything short of immediate defense is a morally abhorable reason for murder. As seen with other nations, the death penalty is not needed to maintain order. Sure, the U.S. is not exactly like other nations, however, several states have also adopted this policy and we don't see seriel killers running around at will. In the modern era, I do not think it's necessary to have executions. There isn't one good reason for it. It doesn't prevent those who kill from killing. Any satisfaction the living victims recieve is temporary at best. The legal system has abused it in the past (not intentionally, but in the future?). It costs more. Finally, our legal system has holes that allow murders to escape legally which is nothing compared to those who escape from prison.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, When the rights of human beings are being violated and life is being taken, why can we not execute them? There is a threat (people are being killed). So the country should act in self defense and put the wrong doers down. Now, obviously if it was not murder, i don't believe that people should get the death penelty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyGilbert Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 But I think that killing a helpless person (even if they are a criminal) is wrong because now another person is being killed, does this solve the matter? no it doesnt because the person that was murdered is still dead and we cant do anything about that -CG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Once a criminal is arrested he/she no longer presents an immediate threat, therefore, any actions taken can no longer be seen as self-defense. Self-defense is not construed as taking action against anyone that could theoretically harm you or has harmed you in the past. Self-defense is using force on someone who is actively attacking. Furthermore, you mention human rights violations as a reason to violate human rights. This is a fallacy. Ghandi said it best "An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyGilbert Posted March 15, 2005 Share Posted March 15, 2005 Well said bbaxterd I agree with you about that 100% self defence is different than execution, Akrid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 I am completely on the fence on this one. On the one hand, I can see how it would work as an extremely effective deterrent to similar crimes, and I can see how it would be useful to execute evil sadistic psychos who are a proven danger to society and have exactly zero chance of being rehabilitated. On the other, what if an innocent man gets executed? You can't exactly release him from death, can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyGilbert Posted March 16, 2005 Share Posted March 16, 2005 than another innocent life has been wrongly sent to death :( see how dumb this is? -CG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akrid Posted March 24, 2005 Share Posted March 24, 2005 Ok, as for the war part what i was questioning was the motive to start wars not the motive of the soldier himself, the motive of all soldersa and the goverment over them collectivley. Ofcourse a solder kills in self defence on a battle field, my point was sayin git is ok therefore there are ecceptions when its ok to kill, i brought up war to counter the argument that "its never ok to take anothers life". then I made the point that its ok to kill for greed but not for revenge. I wasnt saying the solders are greedy, im sure they dont loot the wallrets of enemy ssolders I was speaking of the goverments motive for war. Sorry If I confused people. Forgiveness does not require an apology it requires understanding. If you really understand why someone acted in a particular way you will forgive. It does not mean that there should be no reparation or that the perpetrators should go unpunished but it will take away the revenge element of the sentencing that makes you as bad as the offender. If you enjoy watching somebody die it puts you at the same level as a murderer. I would be wary of what you say about war. If soldiers can be excused murder then so can the soldiers fighting against them. If those soldiers are guerillas and use tactics a regular army doesn't like they get labelled terrorists and different rules are applied to them. I'm not talking here of acts of terrorism against a peaceful society but against an illegal invading force. Forgivness requres understanding? thats it? Ever heard somone say "I dont know why you did it, but I forgive you" theres not really any understanding in that. And forgivness does not requre a apoligy? ok maybe if for you it dosnt but everybody cant be jesus, I cant say to somone whos killing me, "hey I know you dont care but after im dead I want you to know I forgive you". Revenge is a natural instinct, to deny it and kill in cold blood I suppose is even sicker. Thier is a reason for the death penalty, it creates a deturant, I belive that somwhere in a a cloud of rage thier are new lines to cross, wether to go to jail for life or be killed, the fear of death is far more effective. I think America would get much worse without the death penalty. I think its wrong that are leagal system of all things is so crappy, maybe we should just let people do whatever they want then, becauswe we might get the wrong guy. same for war, we might bomb the wrong buliding, civillans die, screw it, let terrorist invade whoever. (even though we problay dont care about the terroist just the oil) your all right lets not take any chances, because we are so incompetent instead of trying to make the sysem work lets give up and let people murder, we should of let the nazis take over the world cause we probaly killed a lot of innocent people by accident. "hey what you in for? killed a family? raped the corpes? cool enjoy your stay in prision raping inmates and living your sick life while the family of the victims get no closure" Sorry man ted bundy deserved it dahmer got his, its the best we do to try to keep some level of karma in the world (I mean that in a non religious way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.