What is murder?

[puglover]

After 9/11, we celebrated the end of moral relativism, therefore the entire world uses the morals of Christian conservatives as the only true morality in the world.

Therefore, it only counts as murder if it's a foetus. Once it is born, its life becomes worthless and disposable. Gawd praise st. Bush!

That is such a closed-minded opinion. You don't know the first thing about what righteousness is. Instead you attack the group the person belongs to.

Unfortunately yes.

Murder is a legal term. Not a moral or ethical term.

I think if the government ordered you to kill an innocent man you'd back out. Why? Because you're human, and you have a moral code within you that hates such evil. Murder is a moral term, it is not simply legal.

 

[Swedishguy]

Does anyone hate that there is rules in war? As if it was some kind of game? I haven't participated in any war and I'm glad for it.

 

[Fifty]

You should have started a thread called 'Ask a murderer' and wait for somebody to show up and answer the questions.

I'm too damn busy.

Ask a pacifist and a veteran what murder is and you'll likely get very different answers.

Personally, I believe that human life should be protected. Therefore, if human life is put in danger by other humans, destroying the aggressor would not be murder. All life is sacred, and must be kept safe whenever possible. But sometimes to defend life, some will die. It's sad, but that's the world we live in.

Agree? Disagree? Discussion?

Murder is when you pop a cap in someone w/o good reason

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Does anyone hate that there is rules in war? As if it was some kind of game? I haven't participated in any war and I'm glad for it.

I haven't participated in any wars, either, and I too am glad of it, but I think the rules of war would tend to make war a bit more friendly to the average soldier, not less.

 

[vikingruler]

Murder is killing someone, it is as simple as that. It is never right even when you are murdering a murderer. Taking a life is never the answer, it makes you as bad as the one who did the killing in the first place.

 

[Xanikk999]

Murder is killing someone, it is as simple as that. It is never right even when you are murdering a murderer. Taking a life is never the answer, it makes you as bad as the one who did the killing in the first place.

I dont see why you always see things in black in white.

Do you beileve its wrong to kill someone who is trying to kill you? Injury alone may not always be an available solution.

For example what if you had to make a split second decision?

 

[vikingruler]

I dont see why you always see things in black in white.

Do you beileve its wrong to kill someone who is trying to kill you? Injury alone may not always be an available solution.

For example what if you had to make a split second decision?

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you're only course of action was to shoot them first, it is a different story. There are always instances where killing someone is the right thing to do, but only when it is the only thing to do. The death penalty is wrong because killing that person isn't the only thing to do, in that case it is the wrong thing to do.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

If someone is pointing a gun at you and you're only course of action was to shoot them first, it is a different story. There are always instances where killing someone is the right thing to do, but only when it is the only thing to do. The death penalty is wrong because killing that person isn't the only thing to do, in that case it is the wrong thing to do.

Then is it right to keep someone who ought to be executed for mass murder alive, when the money that's going to feed and house him could be better used for... charity, maybe? I'd rather keep a poor innocent alive than a murderer.

 

[vikingruler]

Then is it right to keep someone who ought to be executed for mass murder alive, when the money that's going to feed and house him could be better used for... charity, maybe? I'd rather keep a poor innocent alive than a murderer.

When a person is executed they're dead, there is no going back. What if the person executed was really innocent. There are very few instances when you can be 100% sure that the person convicted for a crime punishable by death is really guilty.

 

[Sidhe]

Then is it right to keep someone who ought to be executed for mass murder alive, when the money that's going to feed and house him could be better used for... charity, maybe? I'd rather keep a poor innocent alive than a murderer.

The problem is those on death row cost more in trials and retrials than those who are kept alive. So the death penalty has no financial incentive and it's in fact very costly.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

When a person is executed they're dead, there is no going back. What if the person executed was really innocent. There are very few instances when you can be 100% sure that the person convicted for a crime punishable by death is really guilty.

Why put him in prison in the first place, then? If you aren't sure whether he's a criminal, then you can't in good faith lock him up. You're siphoning away his life when you do that, and he might very well be innocent.

The above paragraph does not represent my views. (edit: rather, the sentiment does not represent mine) If you put a person in jail, you are taking an irrevocable action. That person now has 5, or 10, or 20, or 50 years of their life, wasted. What's so bad about wasting all of their life in an instant, then?

The problem is those on death row cost more in trials and retrials than those who are kept alive. So the death penalty has no financial incentive and it's in fact very costly.

That's a bureaucratic and governmental error, and it can be corrected. There are some cases where the death penalty must be carefully examined, yes. But there are plenty of excesses in the way that they work now. It shouldn't be too tough to make it cheaper to kill a murderer off than to keep him alive for fifty-odd years.

 

[Sidhe]

That's a bureaucratic and governmental error, and it can be corrected. There are some cases where the death penalty must be carefully examined, yes. But there are plenty of excesses in the way that they work now. It shouldn't be too tough to make it cheaper to kill a murderer off than to keep him alive for fifty-odd years.

That's an error based on not taking someones guilt as absolute by trial and on making such guilt absolutely proven before you kill them. People under the death penalty have been found to be innocent further down the line, which is the reason such lengthy trials exist, yes it can be abused, but you can't undermine it without undermining your entire legal system or by sending more innocent people to their deaths, you are stuck with the death penalty ultimately being more costly, and there's nothing you can do about that except repeal it. Get with the program, most democracies have repealed it for this very reason, that it does not serve as a detterent and is ultimatley more costly both economically and morally.

 

[StarWorms]

I can't see a situation where you have to kill to protect yourself. That is to excessive. Beating some one I can accept.

Let's say for instance there's a burglar in your house. You don't know what he's going to do. There's a carving knife on the table.

Only killing someone in self-defence is legal here in the UK but I think that should change. Too many rights are given to criminals, murderers and children (not meaning to bunch them with the latter but they can commit crimes like shoplifting and be let off). Anyway - back to my point... If a burglar comes into my house, that's a crime. I should be allowed to so anything possible to defend myself from him and I'm not going to wait until he threatens me with a weapon. For all I know he could have a gun or a knife himself. It would be a difficult decision to me to choose to threaten him with the knife but not attack him, which I expect is what I'd do.

Once someone has committed a serious crime like burglary, they should leave their rights at the door (or window, or however they got in). If someone breaks into someone's home, they should have to make do with whatever reactions the homeowners make.

There was a case here in the UK where a man got 2 burglars - 1 died and another was seriously injured and from what I can remember he tried to sue the man he was burgling. It's simply ridiculous. Giving criminals so many rights just encourages criminals. Maybe someone here knows more about what happened - did the man go to jail or was he let off?

 

[Trajan12]

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another.

Self defence, Capital Punishment, and War are not murder.

 

[JonnyB]

Murder is the killing of a human that has Not been sanctioned by the current government.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

That's an error based on not taking someones guilt as absolute by trial and on making such guilt absolutely proven before you kill them. People under the death penalty have been found to be innocent further down the line, which is the reason such lengthy trials exist, yes it can be abused, but you can't undermine it without undermining your entire legal system or by sending more innocent people to their deaths, you are stuck with the death penalty ultimately being more costly, and there's nothing you can do about that except repeal it. Get with the program, most democracies have repealed it for this very reason, that it does not serve as a detterent and is ultimatley more costly both economically and morally.

People die in car accidents all the time. If a country's government made cars illegal, those people would be saved. For obvious reasons, the net effect on this country would be overwhelmingly negative. Would you also argue for making cars illegal to save the innocent lives that would be killed in car accidents?

 

[malclave]

Where I live, murder is:

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/187-199.html

 

[brachy-pride]

What is murder

oh baby dont hurt me

baby dont hurt me

no more

 

[Loki cdn]

Murder is what the Oil companies are getting away with everytime I go to gas up my mini van.

 

[CaptainF]

Murder is one of the greatest evils a man can commit.