Bassman62 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 If you are in a kill or be killed situation, then killing the other person(s) to preserve your own life is the lesser of the two evils. Doesn't necessarily make it right,...Just like you can't be half dead, you're either right or wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 If you are in a kill or be killed situation, then killing the other person(s) to preserve your own life is the lesser of the two evils. Doesn't necessarily make it right,... Doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I'm arguing from Kant, which when pushed to absolutes does fall down.Why use an argument that's wrong? I'd have to agree. Also in the act of war or self-defence the argument falls down. There is a time and a place for human rights, and in the calculated act of the state killing people as a form of justice then I think it fits. No law could justify it.I agree, I don't think the death penalty can be justified, I just disagreed with you saying that killing is always unjustified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dress4Less Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I would without doubt bring back the death penalty I really don't see the point in keeping the likes of Ian Brady etc etc alive in a prison cell costing the tax payer £40,000 a year. If commit the type of crime he did does he deserve to be protected by the human rights act? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Why use an argument that's wrong? I'm not inflammable. Everyone makes mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheffvan 1 Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 I would without doubt bring back the death penalty I really don't see the point in keeping the likes of Ian Brady etc etc alive in a prison cell costing the tax payer £40,000 a year. If commit the type of crime he did does he deserve to be protected by the human rights act ? Its because of the criminal( sorry human) rights act that these scumbags will always escape the noose sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just_words Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Put them in a drug induced coma for the duration... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted August 10, 2011 Share Posted August 10, 2011 Its because of the criminal( sorry human) rights act that these scumbags will always escape the noose sadly. How wrong can you be? Capital punishment was abolished in the 60s in this country, decades before the human rights legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 With you up to that point, but if an independent body reviews the case then the right to apply for appeal should not automatically mean that appeal will be granted. I don't see why human life should be treated as anything special - it's not as though we're short of human beings on this planet. No, appeal should not be automatic, but the right of appeal must exist - and is likely to be granted when the death penalty is at stake because, whether you agree or not, the right to life is a serious thing, and is not and should not be taken away lightly. We could emulate and transcend countries like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia that dispense with long winded legal niceties, and start executing perps summarily on an industrial scale (assuming there is the political will to do so). As we've discussed, you'd need to fully give up your right to a fair trial and appeal for that to work. Or we could emulate the USA, but you've already indicated that their system isn't to your liking: far to few people are executed, and each recipient of the death penalty invariable spend decades in prison fighting the sentence and/or verdict. The third way will be anathema to you - it's damage limitation. We give up on the perps of today, prison will do, forget about them. But it's their kids we should be working on. Regardless what you think, criminality isn't mostly genetic, it's mostly learned behaviour. The problem of anti-social behaviour could be solved in a couple of generations without having to kill anyone. Hence your predictable distaste for this way. But by giving up on the kids, we're just plonking more perps onto the start of the crime conveyor belt. Where's the sense in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted August 11, 2011 Share Posted August 11, 2011 How wrong can you be? In Sheffvans's case, I think Bachmann-Turner Overdrive expressed it more clearly than I ever could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.