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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm anti death penalty myself but I must question your logic here. Surely executing someone who has had a fair trial and been found guilty of mass murder isn't as bad as being a mass murderer is it?
    i think it'll make matters worse rather than better-imprisonment can be seen as a harsher punishment, and i would question "fair trial" hmmm
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pezz)
    i think it'll make matters worse rather than better-imprisonment can be seen as a harsher punishment, and i would question "fair trial" hmmm
    How was the trial unfair?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    How was the trial unfair?
    Didn't you know? The only fair trials in the US end with a verdict of 'not guilty.' :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    I take it you're opposed to euthanasia then? And to all wars? And all abortions?
    euthanasia, well, kinda, but it's different as the person themselves, wants to die,
    I'm opposed to abortions except when the mothers live is at risk, or perhaps very very soon after conception, It's not really a topic I've thought an awful lot about.
    I'm opposed to all wars.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    But you shouldn't obey a law simply because it is law, else the law becomes a fallacy.
    What is the purpose of law? Social Control. Only those designated with the power to amend or change law should be allowed to do so, for law is designed to create a social power structure that engenders the aforementioned purpose.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    What is the purpose of law? Social Control. Only those designated with the power to amend or change law should be allowed to do so, for law is designed to create a social power structure that engenders the aforementioned purpose.
    Ooh, speculative; I like it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    Ooh, speculative; I like it.
    I may be wrong, however I have yet to see a convincing counterblast, would you be so kind as to provide that?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    I may be wrong, however I have yet to see a convincing counterblast, would you be so kind as to provide that?
    First; define 'law'. If by 'law' you mean edicts transcribed in adherence to the (prescribed, arbitrary) format of 'legislation' then I would counter that 'law' per se is amoral, and has no innate purpose: one could obtain likewise by simply dictating their whims in accordance with said format and designating it 'law'. Clearly, such would not suffice from any standpoint which purports to advocate 'social control' as law's purpose; mere pieces of paper exert no compulsion. Rather, 'black-letter' law serves to enshrine the purposes of men in a particular form with connotations of 'due process', which is itself contingent upon other factors, and whose definition ultimately stems from considerations of morality and ethos; such as to deem it reasonable that a government should enforce compliance with what is outlined in statute. In summation, 'law' is an abstract which 'should' by definition be obeyed; where 'the law' (to wit, legislation) should not be obeyed, it is bereft any one of a number of pre-requisites (e.g. due process), themselves contingent upon extraneous variables (e.g. democratic consensus), in turn stemming inexorably from the continuum of social norms upon which morality predicates itself, often arbitrarily. Mere 'legislation' is, therefore, but nominal 'law': it evidences intention after much the same fashion as might a Will but, no less so than the latter, may be invalidated by lack of regard for 'due process' and other factors which when amalgamated constitute essential and effective law. Concordantly, legislation itself may be invalidated by lack of regard for 'due process' as dictated by convention. And so on up the hierarchy, ad infinitum, until our inevitable recourse to a concept of fundamental morality.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Profesh)
    First; define 'law'. If by 'law' you mean edicts transcribed in adherence to the (prescribed, arbitrary) format of 'legislation' then I would counter that 'law' per se is amoral, and has no innate purpose: one could obtain likewise by simply dictating their whims in accordance with said format and designating it 'law'.
    I do not doubt that law is intimately connected to morality, but then could not morality itself be a form of 'social control'? That is not to say that it is arbitrary, but rather that it serves a practicle purpose as opposed to a transcendent order.

    Clearly, such would not suffice from any standpoint which purports to advocate 'social control' as law's purpose; mere pieces of paper exert no compulsion. Rather, 'black-letter' law serves to enshrine the purposes of men in a particular form with connotations of 'due process', which is itself contingent upon other factors, and whose definition ultimately stems from considerations of morality and ethos; such as to deem it reasonable that a government should enforce compliance with what is outlined in statute. In summation, 'law' is an abstract which 'should' by definition be obeyed; where 'the law' (to wit, legislation) should not be obeyed, it is bereft any one of a number of pre-requisites (e.g. due process), themselves contingent upon extraneous variables (e.g. democratic consensus), in turn stemming inexorably from the continuum of social norms upon which morality predicates itself, often arbitrarily.
    I agree, but that is irrelevant if, as stated above, these very moral strictures and social conventions are as much as the legislation methods of social control.

    Mere 'legislation' is, therefore, but nominal 'law': it evidences intention after much the same fashion as might a Will but, no less so than the latter, may be invalidated by lack of regard for 'due process' and other factors which when amalgamated constitute essential and effective law. Concordantly, legislation itself may be invalidated by lack of regard for 'due process' as dictated by convention. And so on up the hierarchy, ad infinitum, until our inevitable recourse to a concept of fundamental morality.
    Again true, although Parliament is sovereign and any statue modifying the "due process", if signed by the monarch, would have to be obeyed surely?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ferrus)
    I do not doubt that law is intimately connected to morality, but then could not morality itself be a form of 'social control'? That is not to say that it is arbitrary, but rather that it serves a practicle purpose as opposed to a transcendent order.

    I agree, but that is irrelevant if, as stated above, these very moral strictures and social conventions are as much as the legislation methods of social control.


    Again true, although Parliament is sovereign and any statue modifying the "due process", if signed by the monarch, would have to be obeyed surely?
    Oh, but of course. My point is merely that, for your argument to obtain, the semantics of 'law' must be construed in a fashion alien to the ultimate (pragmatic) aim of this particular debate; which is, I believe, concerned with 'law' as denotes 'legislation' (per se, something that should not necessarily be obeyed by virtue of itself) rather than as a philosophical abstract.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Law has no independent existence. It is entirely invented.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    lock him up and throw away the key - yes.

    but theres been more than enough bloodshed.

    What they believed they were doing were killing criminals themselves. most of the arab world believes that the western world are criminals. In their eyes (as a culture) we are guilty of mass murder ourselves... how many children have been killed in Iraq again??

    an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth does not work.

    i think that made sense..lol

    peace.
    As a punishment it'd be interesting to lock all these convicted terrorists up in the big brother house.:p:
    I wonder what sort of tasks they would be given:rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akhoza)
    As a punishment it'd be interesting to lock all these convicted terrorists up in the big brother house.:p:
    I wonder what sort of tasks they would be given:rolleyes:
    well if the military were involved i guess demeaning sexual acts..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)
    well if the military were involved i guess demeaning sexual acts..
    :eek:
    :hahaha:
    I tried not to laugh but that was a great responce
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Akhoza)
    :eek:
    :hahaha:
    I tried not to laugh but that was a great responce
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    By what twisted logic would you not execute the ringleader, but execute his subordinates? By your logic, bin Laden shouldn't be executed, while the al-Qaeda foot soldiers should be; Hitler shouldn't have been executed (if caught alive), but the Nazi soldiers should have been.
    I was assuming we are only discussing this particular case. If this man killed someone in cold blood, this man should be executed. But if this man was simply an associate, let in on the plan or put down as a hijacker, then her should serve a good few years but not die.

    Clearly the mastermind deserves execution if it is deemed his subordinates do. I am sorry for not clearly stating that.

    But we must be very careful about saying leaders (with no real blood on their hands) should die as well as the actual killers. It can be taken to illogical extremes. eg, if I said to my "gang" I wish this man would just die, and then one of them killed him, should I be executed? I implied it yes, but who is to get inside my head and determine my seriousness? A leader cannot "kill" without his foot soldiers to do the dirty work. But foot soldiers can, and often do, kill without leadership. Those who actualy commit the deed must be treated the most severly. if anthing, that sends out the message that if you are stupid enough to accept a fatal contract you will pay. if the leader takes the biggest wrap, it takes responsibility away from those who actualy killed.

    Just a thought.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HagerVor)

    an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth does not work.
    Correct. Revenge does not work. But CP is not revenge. Its a "don't f**k with me" message and a way of disposing of those who are dangerous to innocents PERMANETLY and without them EVER having the chance to get out. No one is being emotional about this, it would be entirely wrong to become emotional about an execution. It is entirely cold. He dies because he killed. Killers are dangerous and must be deterred. Killing one deterrs others. Deterring them keeps other people alive and safe. Good.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    He's clearly trying to be executed, himself. Almost every word he's said has been deliberately incriminating, and I think it's probable he's trying to make a martyr of himself to further the cause of Islamic extremism. Remember, he's not scared of death, and actually thinks he'll go to Paradise after he dies. Executing him would be more in his favour - and the favour of Islamic extremists - than locking him up. Killing him for revenge despite this isn't the way to go.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Give me death over solitary confinement for life.

    I mean.... I'm a misanthrope, but that would drive me crazy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Give me death over solitary confinement for life.

    I mean.... I'm a misanthrope, but that would drive me crazy.
    What's the use in being a misanthrope if no one is around to hear your clever insults, eh?
 
 
 
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.