Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Executive Sadman

What Is The Legal Difference Between Advocating The Death Penalty And Advocating Murder?

Recommended Posts

For example.

Tempting though it is, it would be illegal for me to call for the Murder of David Cameron.

But presumably its legal for me to advocate for the state homicide of all Prime Ministers who engage in Illegal wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe as long as it is government sanctioned murder it is ok.

As in, "I think Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes for which I would also like the reintroduction of the death penalty".

But when the state do it I don't think they call it murder.. I've never heard that term applied when they've just shot up a middle eastern wedding reception for example.

Perhaps that's the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a vehement opponent of the death penalty, even when as a naive youth I was quite left wing, and hence I guess pro-state.

Becoming a Geo-Libertarian has made it all the more easy morally. If it's not direct self-defence, it's murder as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becoming a Geo-Libertarian has made it all the more easy morally. If it's not direct self-defence, it's murder as far as I'm concerned.

Tell that to the women Ted Bundy killed and raped after being arrested for mass murder.

Oh, you can't. They're dead. Killing him was the only thing that stopped him killing more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a good topic!

We in the UK haven't had a death penalty for some time, but somehow it seems to be OK for our state to chip in with the summary execution of foreign dictators. Weird. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All murder is murder.....do we kill for retribution or protection?...... Two wrongs don't make it right......anyway sometimes death can be preferable to life in certain living conditions...living can be a worse punishment than death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By definition, murder is an unlawful killing and always going to be illegal. So, you'd always be onto a tautological loser there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a good topic!

We in the UK haven't had a death penalty for some time, but somehow it seems to be OK for our state to chip in with the summary execution of foreign dictators. Weird. :blink:

It's also OK for the state to hit people who don't behave the way it wants them to, even when no-one is in danger of physical harm.

The power of the state to make what would be illegal acts for an individual to carry out legal when it does them is borderline magical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also OK for the state to hit people who don't behave the way it wants them to, even when no-one is in danger of physical harm.

The power of the state to make what would be illegal acts for an individual to carry out legal when it does them is borderline magical.

My Little Tony? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's no Gandalf.

Saruman! :wacko: With an army of 10,000 Orcs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eight

It's also OK for the state to hit people who don't behave the way it wants them to, even when no-one is in danger of physical harm.

The power of the state to make what would be illegal acts for an individual to carry out legal when it does them is borderline magical.

Injin? Is that you??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been a vehement opponent of the death penalty, even when as a naive youth I was quite left wing, and hence I guess pro-state.

Becoming a Geo-Libertarian has made it all the more easy morally. If it's not direct self-defence, it's murder as far as I'm concerned.

I am still quite left wing, against the state - and am right with you on the death penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incarcerating people against their will is also illegal but the state does that as well. In fact lots of things done by states such as extracting money, restricting movement etc are unlawful for individuals. Where do you draw the line between actions that are supposed to be for the good of society as a whole and those that just benefit individuals. As has been pointed out before here how do you stop individuals or corporations becoming so rich and powerful that they can act in ways there indistinguishable from states in oppressing other individuals or even killing them as a matter of 'business' as the mafia have done. Living in a world run by Warlords or Medieval barons is not necessarily going to be liberating. Civil and criminal laws can restrict such abuses but they have to be enforced which requires some sort of police force and court system which in essence are arms of the state. In fact one of the reasons we dont have a death penalty is precisely because Parliament has outlawed it in the UK. If there was no such laws then presumably we could all kill each other freely and at our pleasure. In that respect governments can be both coercive and protective. Drawing the line is not as easy as some imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem of which people or governments have the right to take human life is not exactly new

The first recorded Greek law giver Draco set up a very harsh system of justice but it was felt to be an improvement on what had gone before because it was not arbitrary but was written down

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_%28lawgiver%29

In many societies with weak central government the actual process of punishing murder has often devolved to family and kins groups which is why blood feuds are so common in places like Afghanistan.

Do people want to live in a society where this sort of clan justice predominates ?

The Greeks worried about this matter a lot and it appears as a central themes in a lot of Greek Tragedies such as the Oresteia and Euripedes Electra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electra_%28Euripides%29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect most people's problem is not that they can't kill with impunity but that, behind the shield of the state, politicians can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect most people's problem is not that they can't kill with impunity but that, behind the shield of the state, politicians can.

.

No doubt that states are used to legitimize killing. Kings made laws to allow them to kill their enemies but made it illegal for their subjects to do the same to them. Moreover, there is no doubt autocratic states driven by ideology have a habit of murdering people in large numbers. Whether they are actually more blood thirsty than primitive societies is a moot point. Evidence from the late Paleolithic and from studying conflict amongst modern tribal societies suggests that everything in the Roussean garden may not be rosy as some previously thought

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Before_Civilization

http://www.aggsbach.de/2011/05/lethal-conflicts-in-paleolithic-and-mesolithic-societies/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has already been mentioned the difference is definition, so to get anywhere in this duscussion we need to try to avoid being too constrained by the precise definition of words and need to look at the concepts that underly them. So the question is really whether killing is killing full stop, or whether it's justifiable or not depending upon the circumstances.

Although I've just noticed the words "legal difference" in the thread title, so actually it is about the precise definition rather than any underlying moral or ethical issue (the law doesn't define right and wrong although it should try to reflect it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   93 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.