LandoRamone30 Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Murder=The premeditated killing of one human being by another. Murderer=A person who commits murder; a killer. Killing= An act of causing death, especially deliberately. This question has bother me. I don't agree with capital punishment. I had a debate with my father. We have different ideas with the issue of murders. My arguement was, if Joe killed Suezy and then Smith killed Joe. Joe is the murderer and Smith is justified in killing Joe. His argument was, if Joe killed Suezy then Joe is a murderer but Smith is not justified in killing Joe because that will make Smith a murderer too and murder is immoral. Basically, two wrongs don't make a right. I am like , what about Suezy? What about the loss of her value? How will it be recovered? If this issue has been discussed, could anyone that know how to navigate the forums please help me. Thank you for your assistance.
Culain Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 The most important distinction I believe to make is the "why" which is the reason behind Stefan arguing that morality is not like physics but rather like biology. You have to think about who the victim would be or who would press charges if possible, a crime requires a victim, someone who initiates/attempts murder can not by definition be The Victim, thus stopping an initiator of force with force is not an act of aggression but self defense. The level of force used by the defendant could be called into question based on the options and availability of alternative means.
dsayers Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 Murder is the initiation of the use of force that results in the loss of life. If Smith kills Joe while Joe is trying to kill Suzy, this is defensive force. It would not be murder even though it is mechanically identical to murder and is indeed killing. Once Joe kills Suzy he has indeed created a debt, but is not necessarily a threat to Smith in the moment they cross paths. A serial killer on the other hand shows no capacity for reason and is a constant threat to others. Capital punishment is problematic for a number of reasons. First, the State is a coercive institution, so every action carried out in its name is inherently immoral. Secondly, when the State executes, it does out with total disregard on the science behind sociopathy and other such considerations. Some people who have killed once can indeed be rehabilitated and even provide restitution to the friends and family of the victim or community at large. The other thing to keep in mind is the word punishment. If somebody steals for example, their "punishment" is being indebted to whom they stole from for the amount stolen plus extra to cover the effort in recovering the stolen value. It's a lot trickier with assault, rape, and murder where restitution might not be readily possible. Nevertheless, the debt exists between perpetrator and victim. Which I realize becomes fuzzy in the event of murder since the benefactor is no longer alive. I hope this is helpful. Please offer any criticisms or correction. Free society justice is something I struggle with myself as I have a very hard time drawing the lines between isolated violation and serial violator. As well as debt benefactor being dead. I look forward to seeing how this discussion develops.
LandoRamone30 Posted May 11, 2014 Author Posted May 11, 2014 That's a interesting way to view it. I'll have to give it some thought. Thank you.
cobra2411 Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 I had an idea about this when I was transitioning from a constitutionalist to an anarchist, but I never finished thinking it through and it's just sat collecting dust. The idea is this: society comes with benefits, fail to pay restitution for a crime and you lose those benefits. In a stateless society there will be an investigative or police force, a judicial or DRO system where the accused can refute the evidence levied against him and a system for restitution. John steals Larry's law mower. Larry calls the cops, they investigate and it leads them to John and they levy charges against John who now has to show up in court. If John goes and is found guilty then he would be responsible for paying the cost of the investigation, court costs and for reimbursing Larry for his lawn mower and it's loss of use. If John pays for all that then the slate is clean. Now, if John says to hell with all you and ignores the charges then he loses his benefits under society. That will make it more difficult for John to exist though blocking or restricting access to what he needs, but if someone comes by and steals Johns stuff no one will investigate. In the case of a rapist or murderer a victim or someone else could then attack or kill the rapist or murderer and since they did not have the benefits of society available to them it wouldn't get investigated. As I rethink it I feel it's got some flaws in it... Maybe it's got some usable ideas... Anyway, this has been one thing on my mind of how it works in a stateless society as well.
Magenta Posted May 12, 2014 Posted May 12, 2014 Some of my notes: FDR-116 13min - Capital Punishment = http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/116/criminals-part-1-capital-punishment Do third parties have the right to defend others against violence? Of course, but allowing the state to do it? Is the execution of the retaliatory measure the EXCLUSIVE right of the state (no one else allowed to do it)? Can the state properly determine if the retaliatory act is justified? Is the state the SOLE determinant of justification? Can the state tax other people to pay for this process?
Recommended Posts