h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I can see your point, but consider this, why should the victim, (or the family of a victim), pay for the upkeep (through taxation) of the person who did them harm.

Frankly, I have to say, kill the villains, I want my taxes to pay for something useful, hospitals for example.

Dang, I wish I'd read that before I posted it - it looks like I'm supporting what Michael Howard said

I want my taxes to pay for something useful too. And there's a strange thing about prison... the prisoners have the 'right' to certain luxuries that *I* only have the 'right' to as long as I can afford to pay for them. Food, shelter, medical care, tv, phones... now THAT pisses me off. Especially as there have been times when I *couldn't* afford to have those luxuries and had to do without.

You see it is as I quoted, "Where there is crime, there is no Justice"
Now can we plug in "The Chair"

I would call "food, shelter, medical care" basic human needs. TV and phones on the other hand are not necessities and can be considered as 'luxuries'.

That's not really the whole picture though is it? Prison is a brutal place - you'll get some pretty nasty treatment from the inmates and from the guards. In most of the older British prisons, the accomodation is somewhat Dickensian - three in cell meant for one and only one bucket for all of you to pee and s**t in during the night - pee-yew. And as for prison food...

It's hardly the life of Riley. I spent a long, cold British winter living in a delivery van - no heat, no light apart from the tiny bulb in the loading space, a sleeping bag and a camping mat to sleep on, and less space than most prisoners get. I wouldn't have traded it for spending the winter in prison though.

If you are looking for a principle that determines when it is ok to kill, then you are not alone. Many have tried to find one, and the search is elusive.

The problem, I think, is in the nature of principles themselves. The problem with a principle is that there is almost always an exception.

The two main contenders:

1. The Kantian Principle:

It is never ok to kill. This is because if no one kills, everyone benefits. One big problem with this - someone always goes "maybe I could just do it once..." and messes it up for the rest of us.

2. The Utilitarian Principle:

It is ok to kill as long as that saves many others - benefits society, whatever. Big problem = where do you draw the line? Could you pull the trigger if by killing you saved 10 people on Alpha Centauri?

No one has got there yet with a watertight principle. So don't feel too bad if you can't determine a universal principle for yourself. Each case needs to be seen in its own context and particular background.

That's a cold set of rules.

Just like so many arguments this one cannot be answered. It is a personal question, isn't it? Thanks to the *Dictatorship of the Masses* personal questions and their answers are not viable unless they follow the rules of the country.
A government based on religion can make easy choices, the rules have been set. A democracy has the harder road to follow. What determines ethics and morals? War has been decided to be justifiable murder, that is a worldwide constant. Or is it? Especially when a democracy is judged by a population looking on who is a theocracy or religiously based benign dictatorship.

The question is specious unless who is asking it and what the frame of reference is taken into account.

Have you ever met someone who is truely evil ? I did, he was extremely pleasant, and charming. It was only when I came upon him unexpectedly using his wit and charm to bully and humiliate someone less intellectually gifted that I began to wonder.

I still never suspected he was making bombs to blow up innocent people as they went about their daily business.

I also had the misfortune to meet 2 predatory child molestors within the space of about 6 months. They again were charming men, excellent conversationalists.

My point is that deciding you're going to kill people because they are dangerous assumes that we have the ability to predict who is dangerous, or to definately identify them.

I am in favour of terminating those who choose to place themselves outside the bounds of society, but I suspect the people I would place on that list would vary from the ones you would.

There is a man currently being persecuted by 2 world leaders, and I believe their point of view is valid, though I don't agree with their methods. The question is, once you've decided upon the victim, how do you enforce it ?

I'm rambling again.

No, you are not rambling. You are sharing wisdom. I thank you for that. Perspective is everything, I believe that with all my heart. Unfortunately perspective is also blinding (and I don't mean in your case). You, and people like you are why I am here. Thank you.

I don't think it is ever 'ok' to kill people. In some situations it is justified, but never ok. When it isn't even justified it becomes an atrocity. And I personally think that if you did kill someone you'd *know* that the act was not ok.

For example, if you were defending your family from death from an assailant and killed the attacker it would be justified, but it wouldn't be ok. I think you'd be screwed up (AKA Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) for a long, long time for the very reason that it ain't ok at all.

I certainly do not think that capital punishment is acceptable. It is the ultimate hypocrisy on behalf of the state. Research has also shown that it does not work as a deterrant, and the effects it has upon society makes it more damaging than protective. Capital punishment is also a political tool used to gain votes to give an impression of being 'tough on crime', and people at large still think that it is a real deterrant, even though people still kill other people in large numbers. It makes intuitive sense to most, it's appealing to common sense that if you kill someone you die.

I'm going to stop, I'm tired and could meander for pages...

Ste

Meander on. But why do you say it is *justified* but not *OK*? Surely they are the same?
(And I know you don't mind me calling you Shirley!)

OK- that last bit, I do it everytime I use *surely* so don't get upset, OK?

No, I'd say that 'ok' is more of a term that means 'acceptable' or 'satisfactory' in this context. I think that killing another person is never acceptable, but you can demonstrate that there is sufficient reason to kill (i.e., justifiable) in some cases, primarily in self-, or family-defense, etc. Am I making sense?

Ste

Following this thread with interest.

I read somewhere - sorry can't be specific - that it actually costs more to execute a prisoner than it would to keep him in prison for the rest of his days.

I agree with a lot of what's been said in this discussion.

Two things come to mind:

1) using a word like OK in reference to killing people will a;ways lead to misunderstandings, I think being very precise about what you mean in this context would be wise... I guess you mean when is it acceptable to kill people( and by this I guess you mean someone).

2) it is always acceptable to kill someone if you and the rest of society agree that it is, it only becomes an issue when as quite reasonably there are those who think you should not go around killing people for whatever reason.

Some people think life is a gift ( from who I'm not sure), to be treasured, some believe ( as I do) that life is just a consequence of certain Quantum realities, with these vastly differing beliefs on why we are here in the first place, it is only logical that such disparate groups will see this issue differently.

A few examples I think... A Taoist would kill because they know that thay would never do a "wrong action", and if they killed someone then this must be a "right action", "a good man can do no wrong" extends all the way to killing..

Thre are others that believe that as all people are a source of ideas, then they should not ever be killed, because they are our equals, and it is only the morals of society that are out of step with whatever they have done to deserve to be killed.

I'm sorry this has turned into a bit of a monologue, but it is not such an easy question to throw back one line answers..

So many grey areas...

Even in a close-to-home case, such as "If someone was going to kill my neighbour..." there's the issue of how you *know* they're intending to kill your neighbour, and likely to do so.
Unless the assumed would-be killer is there with a gun to your neighbour's head or a knife at their throat, stating that unless they're stopped they'll go ahead and waste the neighbour, it could be very difficult deciding what was going on.
If you just turn up and see your neighbour in some danger, for all you know, before you arrived, the neighbour might have started the fight, there may be a play-fight that happens between the two people regularly, the gun may not be loaded, etc.
In the case of a serious unarmed fight, it would be difficult to judge when one of the participants was in imminent danger of death (unless they're having their unconscious head banged repeatedly on the floor.)


However, concerning killing people in self-defence (or in battle), whilst I appreciate that some people doing so may well suffer psychological problems later, I think that many people who think beforehand "*I* could never kill someone else" probably could do and would do, and many of them would be able to rationalise the act to the point where they didn't lose any sleep over it afterwards. (Obviously, it depends how prolonged and messy the killing was.)

Regarding deterrence, I'd have thought that for most people, the likelihood of being caught and convicted would be the greatest factor.

Assuming that repeat offenders *do* stop and think before comitting crimes, I'm not sure that many who would go ahead faced with the likelihood of a very long (or even full-life) sentence would stop faced with the likelihood of death.
I'd suggest that many criminals just don't (or can't) think, and the ones who do actually consider things and still go ahead do so because they think they won't be caught.

When is it ok to kill people?
Answer: Newer!

On the issue of what society deems as moral; I fully believe there are two kinds of bad, "mala en se" and "mala prohibita".

The first is bad just because it is bad. These are the big ones like murder, rape, theft, abuse etc.

The second is bad because society says it is bad, this is where the morals part comes in. These include lesser offenses, like prostitution, narcotics, speeding etc.

The second group really doesn't come into play here. The only ones I would advocate the death penalty for from the first group are murder and rape.

I don't think anyone advocates a "Minority Report" situation where a person or persons decree that someone might commit a crime. I believe most people posting here who have adovcated the death penalty have stated that they do so for repeat offenders. If a man (or woman, can't be sexist eh?) murders someone, spends 20 years in the can, gets out, murders again, and again, then this person has shown a history of violent behavior that has not changed in however many years in the slammer. I believe a reasonable person could conclude that this baddie wasn't going to change, and would kill again, whether on the outside or in prison.

Some people are just bad people. And while it is a hard thing to take another persons life. It makes it easier taking a bad person's life than letting that person take someone elses life.

Of course, I can't speak for anyone else, but I would assume that most people who value life to any extent would give the baddie threatening the innocent a chance to disarm and live.

I've been there. I was working security at a hospital in Denver when a kid who'd been shot by some gang members was brought in. The gang that shot him wanted to finish the job righ there in the hospital. I was prepared to take a life if it lead to that. I had my weapon drawn, and was thinking that, at that moment $250 didn't seem like all that much for a kevlar vest and I should have bought one. Luckily, even though we were out numbered 12 to 2, no one in the gang wanted to be the first to die so they gave up and left.

I knew, without a doubt that that kid, and probably some nurses and/or doctors would have died that night, and I was prepared to do everything in my power to stop it. Up to and including the taking of one or more lives. I had never thought I would be capable of taking another person's life, but that night taught me something different.

Dang, I get long winded sometimes dont' I?

The reason capital punishment, or for that matter ANY kind of punishment, is not a deterrent, is that you have to remember that most people don't actually believe they're going to get caught. And if they ARE, it's usually so much later that they don't make the link at a gut level, where it matters.

If your puppy messes on the carpet, you rub his nose in it right then. You *don't* clean it up, hold an inquiry, take depositions, give leave for an appeal, then six months later hit him across the nose with a newspaper, because he won't connect the punishment with the crime, and in fact is likely to view the punishment as random cruelty and start to hate you for it. You will then be very indignant when he develops a bad attitude and bites the hand that feeds him. You may very well contend that humans are more intelligent than puppies, but don't kid yourselves.

As for capital punishment, I have two words for anyone in favour - Stefan Kisko. Kisko was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of a little girl, Lesley Moleseed, in 1975. If this country was one of those backward and barbaric enough to kill people whose lawyers fail to mount an adequate defence, Kisko would undoubtedly have hung. As it was, he spent sixteen years in jail.

He could not have committed the crime. The killer had masturbated over the body and left semen stains on the corpse. Kisko had a hormone imbalance for which he was receiving treatment which meant he was physically incapable of any such act. The police and prosecution knew this at the time of the trial.

There have been many, many other such miscarriages of justice over the thirty five years or so since the UK left the Dark Ages behind and stopped killing people whose lawyers failed them. The names of Judith Ward, the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four should be on the mind of anyone thinking of recommending judicial killing.

You do NOT have to be involved in criminal activity to be arrested. You do not have to have committed any crime at all for the flawed and fallible justice system to find you guilty.

This could happen to YOU, or your children. If you are happy to have other people executed, then you MUST, absolutely MUST, be happy to have YOURSELF or your eldest child executed, for NO REASON AT ALL, other than the incompetence, corruption or laziness of law enforcement and judicial workers.

And if you are not happy to lay down your life, tomorrow, for your commitment to that system - then you should not expect any other innocent people to do it, just save you some tax dollars you'd spend on junk food, celebrity magazines or a bigger hard drive.

They really should ballot the population of the US on the issue:

Question 1: do you think the state should kill people found guilty by the courts of certain offences?

Question 2: do you personally volunteer to be the first innocent victim of that system?

Anyone answering "no" to the second question doesn't get their vote counted, because they obviously don't REALLY believe in capital punishment. Anyone who answers "yes" is shot in the back of the head as they leave the polling booth, and the Darwin Awards notch up another contestant.

I'd love to see the outcome *that* poll.



And so, finally, to the question in the subject line.

The question is tricky because it begs another question: ok according to whom? Because *I* may judge it OK to kill someone under certain circumstance, but you may not, or vice versa.

Example: your aging parent is in a home. They can eat and stuff, but they can't communicate. They don't have much quality of life, but they're not in actual pain, thanks to the huge quantities of drugs they're on. You think they should be "put out of their misery" with a slightly increased dose. I think to do so would be murder.

OR: Someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night. I go downstairs and kill them. You believe I have used unreasonable force. I believe that by coming into my house uninvited they have given me all the signals they need that they intend me mischief, and I don't intend to wait for any more signals before I render them permanently incapable of doing so. Specifically, I'm not going to wait to count how many of them there are, or what sort of weaponry they've brought with them, before I respond with immediate and overwhelming force. They came to me, I didn't go to them, so the responsibility for their fate is theirs.

So when do *I* think it's OK, to kill people?

Defending oneself, one's family, and anyone else for whom one is responsible (friends, acquaintances, random bystanders - Jesus pretty much summed it up with his definition of "your neighbour"). I have (see above) rather specific definitions of what constitutes an attack requiring lethal defense.

If someone of sound mind asks you to, I believe it is OK help them end their life if they are not capable of doing so themselves. There obviously need to be a lot of safeguards to make sure they REALLY mean it, but in principle, it's their call, and if you can help, you should.

Under legal orders from a commanding officer in a military unit you have volunteered to join.

I was going to say "when to do so would save more lives"... but I don't know about that one. Let's say there's a guy somewhere with something in his blood which could cure AIDS. To get it out, you have to kill him. Do you do it? Tough one. I have to say I'm on the side of "no you don't", once again on the grounds that that guy could be ME, or you.

Good question.... I like ones that make me think.

H.

If extending beyond a punishment purely for murder, the issue of where to draw the line is very tricky one - how violent does a rape have to be before it is sufficiently awful to justify the death penalty - Wouldn't some cases of (non-sexual) abuse of a child, or torture of an adult be *worse* than some rapes?.