NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?

Reminds me of that old defense for murder: "Well...he needed killin'."

:p

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?
I'm fairly sure that murder, by definition, is illegal killing. So once it's legal, it's not murder.

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?

First question: how do you define murder, as well as concepts used in that definition (like for instance "human").

Second question: would you accept an ethical/moral system based around the concept "minimise suffering and harm" instead of "the right to life" ?

It already is legal in some circumstances--not for the private citizen, but there are plenty of nations that allow assassination of enemies of the state. I'm afraid that if you're looking for a real substantive discussion of this subject, you're going to have to define your terms more carefully, most especially murder (because there's a solid argument that state execution is legalized murder), and where you're talking about when you ask if it should be legal--the US? Canada? North Korea?

**laughs** How delightfully patronizing. Very amusing.

Tell me, just how conceited are you in your insignificant knowledge? Or is this mostly for show, and your insufferable arrogance primarilly meant to stir up the debating skills of your fellows?
Pot...meet kettle.

:rolleyes:

Murder already is legal in some circumstances.

Just take the Army, for example.
If someone in the Army kills someone, they're a hero. If a regular citizen kills someone, they're an awful human being.

Do you agree with that? Should soldiers in the army be awarded for killing faceless people who have done nothing to them?

murder should never be legalized.
however, some circumstances should make the punishment smaller (as self defence).
I consider your question in the criminal area, so war, aboration or enthuazia (which I don't consider those 3 as murder) are outside the answer.

Pot...meet kettle.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, tell me about it. I realized what I was doing a moment late. It angered me, but that's no reason for me to be an ass.

Its not worth it. Simply isn't.

murder should never be legalized.
however, some circumstances should make the punishment smaller (as self defence).
I consider your question in the criminal area, so war, aboration or enthuazia (which I don't consider those 3 as murder) are outside the answer.

I agree with you on some points, like abortion and euthanazia. But on the self defense point, isn't that too easy to bend?

Murder should never be a right, but under the right cercumstances it can be allowed. Although it is noted that not everyone should be allowed to commit murder. It would be an easy way to solve daily parking problems or bad seats at the cinema.
You can't just have people knocking off their fellows all the time, so you would have to regulate it. I mean, not everyone has the intellectual capacity to be reasonable with murder. Most people would just go on a rampage, and we can't have that- even if the rampagers are intellectually superior. I mean, we regulate the hunting of deer and moose, we really would be careless not to have a season for people.
Have an annual "strangulation day" or "electrocution weekend." Let out school early on "Hang a friend day."

So, my conclusion: Murder is a privilage allowable (in season) only to a few intellectual superiors like James Sterwart.

I like that you've put this up, it caught my eye straight away. I've thought about this a bit.

My ideas: if people are to be free, then that would mean that there cannot be a state to control them. As such, things like murder would be legal. And people would be able to do whatever they want, with only their morality to hold them back.

However.

It seems to me this is what humanity grew out of: anarchy: we have made the laws we have for a reason. People could be free, and it would be pretty great, but what of those moments of anger, what about those people who think it is right to murder? Is it then right, or justified for them to murder? Is it right to subject them to our morals just because the people who think murder is wrong are in the majority?

Is the majority always right? (looking at chart music, I say no.)

So does democracy work?

I don't know.

I would try and answer my questions myself, but it would take a while. And I'm going to the cinema.

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?

<sigh>

If you had posted an intelligent question, you might be more likely to get intelligent answers.

Depends entirely on what you mean by "murder" and "legal."

Homicide (of which murder is a subcategory) is, by definition, illegal. If you acted legally, you did not commit murder.

"Murder" as a moral term doesn't mean much.

Killing of another person? Yes, sometimes it is and should legal.

Killing of non-persons? Yes, it usually is and should be legal.

Your turn, sparky.

I'm fairly sure that murder, by definition, is illegal killing. So once it's legal, it's not murder.

i agree, soldiers kill, they don't murder, but if you wanted to call it murder, then that's legalized already.

However, case in point, the soldiers who've gone on trial for murder because they killed a guy who was already going to die.... well, they were convicted (i think) so even soldiers can get charged w/ murder.

www.dictionary.com states:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.

so i'm gonna say that murder should never be legal, but killing should be ;)

The state is suppose to decide for whatever causes.
You can't have people taking matters in their own hands.

i... To kill brutally or inhumanly. ...


this just reminds me of the ppl who argue against capital punishment... The states don't kill ppl brutally or inhumanly

I think murder (or killing, or termination, the wuestion here is not about definitions) shouldn't be permitted in any cirmumstances, but like someone other said, there are already situations where it is permitted
for example: in the economically strongest nation of the world, which is also the oldest modern democracy, in many states the practice of capital punishment is still in use. This barbaric medieval practice is nothing else but murder allowed by the State, in respect of the principle of revenge (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life), which was first adopted by Nebuchadnezzar several thousands of years ago in Babylon, because that was an age where mutilations and killings where a daily issue in the city --- I think the justice system of a modern state should adopt a more actual principle.
another example: war. Not every killing in war is permitted, but if I, as a soldier, drop a bomb on a market and kill 20 civilians, I will hardly be processed. And if i kill an enemy soldier, of course I will have no trouble because in that situation murder between soldiers is commonly accepted.
Of course, if there was neither death penalty (completely possible, in Europe we live without it since generations and the crime rate is lower than in the US) nore war (not so easy, expecially when there is no will in that direction), the only circumstance where murder is permitted would be legitimated self-defense, which adds only a small amount of deaths to the count.

what circumstances were you thinking of?

i live in new mexico where many things that might get a brit sent to prison wont even end up in court here.

some guy breaks into my house and i shoot him dead, they just come to collect the body and apologize for the inconvenience. i probably wont ever have to hire a lawyer never mind go to court for it.

so what murder might be reclassified as justifiable homicide in your opinion?

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?
The intelligent or moral answer would be no but I should tell you that it was legal in my country until a few years ago.

I add that I don't consider abortion as murder, nore euthanasia if a person has expressed in the past that he prefers to be killed instead of living in a vegetative state


by the way, murder cannot be considered something like a civil right, because remember that every civil right is based on the statement that my freedom ends where the one of others begin
sometimes the definition of this "borderline" causes problem, but concerning murder I think it is obvious that it is an invasion of the freedom of the murdered

Murder already is legal in some circumstances.

Just take the Army, for example.
If someone in the Army kills someone, they're a hero. If a regular citizen kills someone, they're an awful human being.

Do you agree with that? Should soldiers in the army be awarded for killing faceless people who have done nothing to them?

How exactly can the same faceless innocent, still be called an innocent when they are shooting at those who are in the army? Please explain that to me.

How exactly can the same faceless innocent, still be called an innocent when they are shooting at those who are in the army? Please explain that to me.

not every man killed by a soldier is an enemy
civilian deaths are higher in almost every war
see what's happening in Iraq

I'm fairly sure that murder, by definition, is illegal killing. So once it's legal, it's not murder.

Wow, a correct answer on the second reply. I'm very impressed. Only about half of the posters were actually stupid enough to legitimately debate this topic. Good job, men. Whereas killing can be legal, murder cannot. Period. I just felt the need to post this due to the apparent lack of understanding with regards to the English language of those on this site. Congratulations on beating everyone else to it, Anarchist, here's a cookie.

Amazing thread.

Seriously.

Wow, a correct answer on the second reply. I'm very impressed. Only about half of the posters were actually stupid enough to legitimately debate this topic. Good job, men. Whereas killing can be legal, murder cannot. Period. I just felt the need to post this due to the apparent lack of understanding with regards to the English language of those on this site. Congratulations on beating everyone else to it, Anarchist, here's a cookie.

Let me get this straight:

You posted a deliberately self-contradictory and inane question to expose the lack of understanding of the rest of us?

You show 'em, Mr. Pot.

EDIT: Some people chose to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you were actually asking an intelligent question. Apparently, they were mistaken

Main Entry: 1mur·der
Pronunciation: 'm&r-d&r
Function: noun

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

function: verb
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY

Since these are the most relevant definitions of murder, then no, murder, which is illegal, premeditated, and meant with malice, should never become legal.

Note that there are times when killing IS legal -- for instance, in cases of self-defense where lethal force is reasonable and justified, or in the case of authorities (such as police) when such a killing is the only way to prevent others being harmed or killed by the attacker.

Wow, a correct answer on the second reply. I'm very impressed. Only about half of the posters were actually stupid enough to legitimately debate this topic. Good job, men. Whereas killing can be legal, murder cannot. Period. I just felt the need to post this due to the apparent lack of understanding with regards to the English language of those on this site. Congratulations on beating everyone else to it, Anarchist, here's a cookie.Actually, if you look at one of the definitions posted earlier in the thread, you'd notice that one definition is simply to kill brutally. Legality is not always a part of it. But nice try anyway.

Wow, a correct answer on the second reply. I'm very impressed. Only about half of the posters were actually stupid enough to legitimately debate this topic. Good job, men. Whereas killing can be legal, murder cannot. Period. I just felt the need to post this due to the apparent lack of understanding with regards to the English language of those on this site. Congratulations on beating everyone else to it, Anarchist, here's a cookie.

Congratulations. That's flaming and an admission of trolling. Well done. Official warning.

Hey, I was wrong; the question here actually IS about definitions.

this just reminds me of the ppl who argue against capital punishment... The states don't kill ppl brutally or inhumanly
You ever actually witness an execution, especially in the electric chair or gas chamber?

Ok, let's take up some definitions:

A) let us go ahead and define murder as Pre-meditated. That rules out many of the exceptions that we are hearing. So self defense, soldiers at war and even momentary passions are not murder.

B) let us separate murder and excecution. Murder does not result from a fair trial of peers as punishment for past crimes.

C) let us make sure we define murder as something only humans can commit when killing other humans. your dinner, although it is dead, was not murdered. One person mentioned killing animals, but I think killing vegetables cruelly can be just as bad.

D) let us make sure that Murder is undesired killing. Assisted suicide is not what we are talking about. That keeps euthenasia out of the issue.

E) let us define humans as having been born, so that we keep the issue away from abortion.

Ok. So, now let us ask ourselves: Can Murder, so defined, be Justified?

Isn't it already in Florida?

"my life was threatened....."

Hence the reason abortion is not murder.

well...im going to say this, bounty hunters have a right to " eliminate active subjects" on hunts if it becomes too dangerous, meaning that if their target starts becoming a harm to anything extremely, they can essentially take their life away. but its not murder, since the target was originally given a death warrant so, what happens based upon this is the hunter can kill the person and not call it murder. however, doing this upon ordinary citizens, i assume you need a death warrant for all of them...to make it legal.

I agree with you on some points, like abortion and euthanazia. But on the self defense point, isn't that too easy to bend?
I am not judge and I don't need think about posibble bending. I just think that murder on self defence is more justified than murder on money. it isn't enough for release from the jails murdere on self defence, but it may reduce a bit their punishment.

Ok, let's take up some definitions:

A) let us go ahead and define murder as Pre-meditated. That rules out many of the exceptions that we are hearing. So self defense, soldiers at war and even momentary passions are not murder.

B) let us separate murder and excecution. Murder does not result from a fair trial of peers as punishment for past crimes.

C) let us make sure we define murder as something only humans can commit when killing other humans. your dinner, although it is dead, was not murdered. One person mentioned killing animals, but I think killing vegetables cruelly can be just as bad.

D) let us make sure that Murder is undesired killing. Assisted suicide is not what we are talking about. That keeps euthenasia out of the issue.

E) let us define humans as having been born, so that we keep the issue away from abortion.

Ok. So, now let us ask ourselves: Can Murder, so defined, be Justified?
well.

some women who are terribly abused by their husbands, instead of fleeing to a shelter, plan out their murder. they tend to wait until they have drunk themsleves unconscious then stab/shoot/beat them to death. they have a fairly good chance of getting aquitted.

is this what you were thinking of?

Ok, let's take up some definitions:

I still need your definition for humans then. Do you mean the biological entity or the persona ? For instance: was Terri Schiavo still human, assuming her brain was really liquefied ?

Ok. So, now let us ask ourselves: Can Murder, so defined, be Justified?

The morally right thing to do: yes. For instance when it is not possible to have a fair trial because the "victim" controls the courts, but does engage in crimes - say genocide - quite often.
In such cirumstances legalising murder of course is not really relevant.

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?
Oh, yes. Murder should be legal if the "victim" in question is a sexual predator, murderer, or irritating pop star. If you wish me to expand on that, I would be glad to do so.

well.

some women who are terribly abused by their husbands, instead of fleeing to a shelter, plan out their murder. they tend to wait until they have drunk themsleves unconscious then stab/shoot/beat them to death. they have a fairly good chance of getting aquitted.

is this what you were thinking of?
I think this could be justified as self defence. terrible abuse as cruel treatment are thing that any person should be defend from, and therefore it self defence (although not defence from harm in life). as it self defence, he alredy mentioned it, and it isn't part of his definition to murder.

of course I would suggest to those women to simply leave their husbands, instead of choosing directly the murder option

I would also add to the issue: "in a civil society"
because in a psychotic dictatorship you can obviously expect the use of political murder

Should murder be legalized? The answer is yes & no

There are cases were murder is already legal (ex. defending yourslef and accidently causing the death of your assailant)

BUT murder of the innocent should be illegal and it is currently.

There is no simple answer of yes and no, but every case of murder (legal or illegal) must be dealt with by the proper authorites( judges, juries, courts in general).

in some cultures, divorces is illegal. in those circumastances murder can be the only option.

I think this could be justified as self defence. terrible abuse as cruel treatment are thing that any person should be defend from, and therefore it self defence (although not defence from harm in life). as it self defence, he alredy mentioned it, and it isn't part of his definition to murder.



In addition, women who kill their husbands because of extreme crulety would not plead self defence, but rather an insanity plea (as many cases such of these cause insanity before hand)

In addition, women who kill their husbands because of extreme crulety would not plead self defence, but rather an insanity plea (as many cases such of these cause insanity before hand)

yes but

1) is it allowable to kill an unconscious man when you can just as easily walk out the door?

2) if its OK, why should she have to plead temporary insanity? shouldnt "he needed killin'" be enough?

In addition, women who kill their husbands because of extreme crulety would not plead self defence, but rather an insanity plea (as many cases such of these cause insanity before hand)
insanity plea? I thought it's only judical definition which let all the politican, riches, and criminal with good lawyer, to be free although there is proofs that they commited crime.

yes but

1) is it allowable to kill an unconscious man when you can just as easily walk out the door? sometimes this option isn't exist.

2) if its OK, why should she have to plead temporary insanity? shouldnt "he needed killin'" be enough?if it used properly, "he needed killin" should be enough.

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?

Should "muder" be legal? No... Killing should, however (since murder is unlawfull killing, I can't see how it can be "legal" in any circumstance, since if it were, it wouldn't be murder in the first place....)

Well... in some cases murder could be consider an over-due abortion... Take Micheal Jackson, for instance...

I'm sorry, it slipped out.

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?

What kind of question is that? How old are you? Grow up, you stupid kid.

I'm fairly sure that murder, by definition, is illegal killing. So once it's legal, it's not murder.
From what I can tell this needs re posting :)

What kind of question is that? How old are you? Grow up, you stupid kid.
Lol thanks for the intellectual response

:p

Reminds me of that old defense for murder: "Well...he needed killin'."

:p
Thats as good a reason as i can think of. :p

Lol thanks for the intellectual response

:p

Totally deserved.

Totally deserved.
Oh and why is that? (curious because you did not really post your reasoning for your attempt to deride him based on his age)

You ever actually witness an execution, especially in the electric chair or gas chamber?

That my friend, is why we no longer use such devices. lethal injection is a beautiful thing.

Oh and why is that? (curious because you did not really post your reasoning for your attempt to deride him based on his age)

Because of his question. A "normal" fully developed (mentally that is, i.e. 18 or over) would never post "should murder be legalised...". I mean, come on, SHOULD WE LEGALISE MURDER? Does it really needs explaining?

Because of his question. A "normal" fully developed (mentally that is, i.e. 18 or over) would never post "should murder be legalised...". I mean, come on, SHOULD WE LEGALISE MURDER? Does it really needs explaining?
Not to me , though the way he worded it makes me think that he was looking for the answer of “its impossible to have illegal murder … so if it is not illegal how can we legalize it”

At least that’s how I took it (that he knew the answer and was waiting to see how long it took for others to get it)

This is my own little test to see how long it takes someone intelligent to post on this subject. I predict it taking quite a long time; impress me. Simple question: should murder be legal in some circumstances?
As many have pointed out, if a killing is not illegal then it is not murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human, so you cannot have legal murder. We have many situations in which it is lawful to end the life of another human, but those cases are not (by definition) murder.