Turn on thread page Beta

Should he be executed? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should he be executed?
    Yes
    26
    31.33%
    No
    57
    68.67%

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    You think "justice" is absolute? That my friend is asinine.
    If it is not absolute, then it is vacuous. That absolutism can be based on a moral code (usually religious) or on the principle of upholding society through a code of laws.


    Not even close. Justice is to do with desert. Desert is to do with morality. You cannot for a second remove justice from morality.
    Oh indeed you can, if you accept a pragmatic sanction.

    Justice has nothing to do with the most efficacious manner of holding society together... it is about what people deserve.
    What people deserve is based on what society says they should have.

    But you go in circles. You either accept a absolute moral code (something that I think can only be justified by some divine power) or you accept morality is itself just there to provide an efficacious manner of constructing societal stability. In either case, the practical manifestation of the justice is the legal system. To obey the legal system is to be just.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    And so, and here comes the clue train so you better engage some of your meagre mental power: they become politically active and seek to have the law changed through the legistlative process!
    Correct. And they do so because they think that the law is not a good law. You seem to be missing the point completely.

    And please don't make comments about my 'meagre mental power'. You are in no position to judge my intelligence.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    No one should ever be allowed to be executed. End of story. Any proponent of such practice has a distorted ideology.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xzcplvijg-sadfuvbkeb)
    Correct. And they do so because they think that the law they are against is not a good law.
    But whilst it remains on the statue book it should be obeyed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darkenergy)
    No one should ever be allowed to be executed. End of story. Any proponent of such practice has a distorted ideology.
    Everyone should ever be allowed to be executed. End of story. Any opponent of such practice has a distorted ideology.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    If it is not absolute, then it is vacuous.
    No. Its a descriptive social construct. Not meaningless, but not absolute.

    (Original post by Ferrus)
    That absolutism can be based on a moral code (usually religious) or on the principle of upholding society through a code of laws.
    There is no rational abslutism. Even religion is open to the perennial why.

    (Original post by Ferrus)
    Oh indeed you can, if you accept a pragmatic sanction.
    The linguistic concept of justice is inherently about morality. Sorry.

    (Original post by Ferrus)
    What people deserve is based on what society says they should have.
    Which is based on how society judges their morality.

    (Original post by Ferrus)
    But you go in circles. You either accept a absolute moral code (something that I think can only be justified by some divine power) or you accept morality is itself just there to provide an efficacious manner of constructing societal stability.
    Yes. Indeed, but the point is that you contended that justice was not a moral concept. It is. Just because that morality is subjective is not to say that it is irrelevant.

    (Original post by Ferrus)
    In either case, the practical manifestation of the justice is the legal system. To obey the legal system is to be just.
    A definition at odds with almost all legal writers. From positivists to natural lawyers.

    Regardless, if the Jury says dont execute him, then that is to obey the legal system.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    But whilst it remains on the statue book it should be obeyed.
    Sounds like a nice get out clause for people who want to justify having taken part in genocide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Everyone should ever be allowed to be executed. End of story. Any opponent of such practice has a distorted ideology.
    What if, as is entirely concievable, evidence comes up to clear someone 5 years after they've been gassed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    But whilst it remains on the statue book it should be obeyed.
    I disagree. Bad rules need to be broken.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    What if, as is entirely concievable, evidence comes up to clear someone 5 years after they've been gassed?
    What if, as is entirely concievable, evidence comes up to clear someone 5 years after they've spent a life in prison?

    (Original post by xzcplvijg-sadfuvbkeb)
    I disagree. Bad rules need to be broken.
    And who decides what's a bad rule?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    And who decides what's a bad rule?
    The person breaking it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Then we (excluding me. :p: )would have murdered an innocent person. Thus, the persons who helped to convict the apparent murderer yet innocent person are no better than the terrorist, and these people, by the same logic, should thence be executed; but in reality this does not happen (the panel of individuals who made the wrong decisions getting executed), whence injustice occurs, and the theoretical framework upon which such ideology is based thus becomes fundamentally flawed.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xzcplvijg-sadfuvbkeb)
    The person breaking it.
    So if a paedophile believes that paedophilia shouldn't be against the law?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    What if, as is entirely concievable, evidence comes up to clear someone 5 years after they've spent a life in prison?
    Less likely......

    But if you believe in an eye for an eye, then obviously the DP is justified. I don't.
    I'd like to see people who commit extreme crimes kept alive also for research purposes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darkenergy)
    Then we (excluding me. :p: )would have murdered an innocent person. Thus, the persons who helped to convict the apparent murderer yet innocent person are no better than the terrorist, and these people, by the same logic, should thence be executed; but in reality this does not happen (the panel of individuals who made the wrong decisions getting executed), whence injustice occurs, and the theoretical framework upon which such ideology is based thus becomes fundamentally flawed.
    Better let out a murderer and face the near certainty of him killing again than face the theoretical, yet never practical, possibility that an innocent man has been executed? You don't happen to be French, do you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    the theoretical, yet never practical, possibility that an innocent man has been executed?
    Never? Depends on who you believe I s'pose. I've heard some pretty worrying stories of racial prejudice in the police force that would lead me to believe it's a very real possibility
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Less likely......

    But if you believe in an eye for an eye, then obviously the DP is justified. I don't.
    I'd like to see people who commit extreme crimes kept alive also for research purposes.
    More likely actually, since it actually happened.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Better let out a murderer and face the near certainty of him killing again than face the theoretical, yet never practical, possibility that an innocent man has been executed? You don't happen to be French, do you?
    Nationality or ethnicity has nothing to do with one's point of view. So your question is completely irrelevant. But since you requested such information, I am Chinese and am living in England. Oh, just for completeness, my nationality is British. Nationality and ethnicity are different.

    I never suggested that the convicted murderer (innocent or not) to be let out, I merely pointed out that murdering a murderer is fundamentally unethical.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Never? Depends on who you believe I s'pose. I've heard some pretty worrying stories of racial prejudice in the police force that would lead me to believe it's a very real possibility
    There are groups who go over every single death penalty case and they have yet to find a single man innocent after he's been executed?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    More likely actually, since it actually happened.
    I'm not saying it doesn't. But are you saying it's never happened with the DP? If that's the case I can only imagine that's because the DP is employed in more clearcut cases than the life-sentence, where the two options are both available.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.