-->
@TwoMan
Assisted suicide is not murder.
Interesting take, why do you hold this to be the case? 🤔
A Moral Question Involving Homicide
Posts
Total:
86
-->
@TwoMan
is suicide legal? I don't believe it is. So if you help, encourage or otherwise engage in an illegal activity, what difference does it make what the illegal activity is?
-->
@Buddamoose
I did ask if serving justice was our goal. From my perspective justice, if that can even be attained, is of secondary importance to promoting public safety.
Right and wrong, justice and vengeance, legal and unlawful these are all subjective to the society, or sometimes even the individual. Harm and wellbeing are by and large objective. We can argue about what the most just punishment is but the thing that prevents the most harm is to remove murderers and those that conspire to murder from general society.
Harm and wellbeing are by and large objective.__________justice, if that can even be attained, is of secondary importance to promoting public safety
So, before we go any further into discussing, to clarify, Primary Concern in Jurisprudence to you is Utility, and therein, especially focused upon harm reduction and promotion of general welfare?
This because, as you claim, Harm and Well-being both are objective criteria, at the least, moreso objective? 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Assisted suicide is not murder.Interesting take, why do you hold this to be the case? 🤔
Physician assisted suicide is legal in multiple countries and in seven U.S. states. Murder is the unjustified killing of another person.
Murder is the unjustified killing of another person.
*Unlawful
Murdering person X because you can get their stuff afterwards is a justification for killing in itself. Whether or not one agrees it is sufficient justification is a different matter. That is where lawful becomes necessary to the definition as opposed to unjustified fmpov, because justified does not equal that which is just either necessarily or in any signifigant measure.
-->
@TwoMan
Physician assisted suicide is legal in multiple countries and in seven U.S. states
So it's not murder there, but should it, or should it not, be considered as such, independent of whether or not it is lawful in particular areas?
Thanks so far to everyone responding btw. This thread was because I was exploring potential mock trial ideas and felt this was a very compelling hypothetical circumstance.
Its also tbh discovering potential independent debate topics as well 👏👏
-->
@Buddamoose
Person 3 should be arrested for committing murder. The means and level of premeditation would make it first degree murder. That kill alone wouldn't get the person the death penalty most likely if the means weren't too cruel but if other kills were uncovered as having been done by the hitman/hitwoman then they'd end up getting the DP under most states' laws I believe.
Person 1 is going to go with their lawyer to make themselves out to be an accessory to murder but this is entirely untrue and if the prosecutor is well trained and the prosecution team does their job right, person 1 will go down for committing first degree murder as the hitman is their weapon of choice.
-->
@Buddamoose
So, before we go any further into discussing, to clarify, Primary Concern in Jurisprudence to you is Utility, and therein, especially focused upon harm reduction and promotion of general welfare?This because, as you claim, Harm and Well-being both are objective criteria, at the least, moreso objective? 🤔
I'm afraid that what the primary concern of jurisprudence should be is also subjective but yes for me it is utility and especially preventing harm. I feel that the law should protect the people and that if it does not then it is a poor law.
-->
@Buddamoose
I thought that "unlawful" was implied in my statement. The problem with only saying "unlawful" is that there are lawful reasons to kill someone that are "justified". That is why the term "unjustified" matters.*UnlawfulMurdering person X because you can get their stuff afterwards is a justification for killing in itself.
So it's not murder there, but should it, or should it not, be considered as such, independent of whether or not it is lawful in particular areas?
No. It does not fit the definition of murder. Suicide is the killing of oneself. Murder is the killing of another person. A physician assisting with a suicide is not killing another person. They are assisting another person to painlessly kill themselves.
Both get Conspiracy charges, so, I can see both getting similar punishments. Depends on how much money they have for a lawyer.
-->
@TwoMan
*Homicide is the killing of another person. Murder is another kind of determination, a legal one.Suicide is the killing of oneself. Murder is the killing of another person.
Assisted Suicide is a fancy way of saying, "i killed X, but with their permission."
A physician assisting with a suicide is not killing another person.
This would only be true if the actual act that killed the person who wished to die, was carried out by that person. If the doctors action kills the patient, they have killed another, ergo, homicide.
I thought that "unlawful" was implied in my statement. The problem with only saying "unlawful" is that there are lawful reasons to kill someone that are "justified". That is why the term "unjustified" matters.
No, its not, because again, "I wanted to kill them for their stuff" is justification(justifies) for the act. Whether or not such a killing is "just" in accordance with the law, is an independent matter. A "justified" killing =\= a "just" killing.
Murder
Homicide
Kill
All three are different despite being the same.
To kill is to take somethings life. Justification and ability to prosecute is irrelevant.
To commit homicide is to kill another human being. Justification and ability to prosecute irrelevant.
To commit murder is the premedidated and unlawful, killing of another human being. Ability to prosecute is now relevant, and by consequence the justification for doing so is because that is a factor in adjudicatory decisions.
Without the presence of *unlawful* there is no pertinent difference between homicide or murder as they would be defined. Premedidated homicide is included within the term of homicide.
Murder itself, however, is inherently a legal term. Homicide in itself, though used as a term legally, is not. This is why lawful is important, because lawful incorporates the need for good reason(justified), as deemed, necessary. "Unjustified" does not necessarily incorporate whether or not that killing is lawful. it also does not establish it as a prosecutable crime either, quite the necessity if one is going to see it fit to prosecute killing of one person by another as a crime 🤔
-->
@RationalMadman
Good link, solid explanation.
So if the means were deemed heinous enough, would P1 and P3 both be eligible to be put to death? 🤔
Not *would* rather *should* they both be eligible for the death penalty? 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Yes
-->
@RationalMadman
Consistent, i like it 🔥
Earlier, this came up
Smithers-P1 enables P3 to exist in the first place, so heavy jail term but not as severe as P3, since they don't appear to be capable of killing people themself.Myself-This being a compelling angle on culpability. That offers good reason fmpov why P1 is, per virtue of likely not being capable of such act themselves, not as culpable. 🤔 No P3, likely no killing of P2. P3 even existing constitutes as evidence to support this likelihood in itself fmpov 🤔.
What do you make of this in relation to your determination? Is this an incorrect analysis of culpability? If so, why?
-->
@Buddamoose
Let's set aside the legal issue first: depends on the jurisdiction. For example, in my state, solicitation for murder is a misdemeanor and held to a lower standard than the actual murder (though there is a push to make it a felony).
But let's getting into the weeds of the moral analysis. Ultimately, I think the solicitation is less of an immoral act than the murder.
First: The negative result here is the unjustified death of the victim. I would then judge the "seriousness" of the immoral act in relation to its proximity to that negative result.
1. The actual murder itself is the closest in proximity (it directly causes the death of the victim).
2. The solicitation is one step further away (it indirectly causes the death of the victim).
The solicitation is less proximate to the negative result, so it is less immoral.
Second: Now, one could argue that the actual murder wouldn't have happened without the solicitation. At first blush this seems to be true, but I think if we dig down we can see this isn't the case.
The hit man in question is offering himself up to commit murders. At the end of the story he's killing someone. Maybe not this victim, but a murder is happening at some point. Therefore the solicitation doesn't cause a murder inasmuch as it simply decides who the victim is. This is only morally relevant if we decide that the immorality of a murder can change depending on the victim (which is a whole different discussion). If we accept that changing the victim doesn't change the immorality of the act, then the solicitation isn't causing or worsening an immoral act, it is just establishing a value for one of the variables (the victim) that has no impact to the morality of the overall situation.
The solicitation isn't really a causal factor (in a sense that is relative to moral judgements).
Third: We can apply a certain calculus in weighing the morality of an action by how likely it is to succeed. Whatever factors could inhibit directly killing someone, those factors, plus more, could inhibit the solicitation of that murder. Necessarily, solicitation is then less likely to succeed than direct murder. Another way to look at it is that solicitation is less of a threat than murder.
Now, when it comes to punishment and plugging this back into a legal sense, things get a little stickier. Crime and punishment are only so granular. So while I deem solicitation to be less immoral than the murder itself, the question is: is it sufficiently less similar to be deemed a less severe crime? I can see arguments for it being as severe of a crime as murder, especially when it comes to deterrence.
-->
@drafterman
I think you have misread your sources. Solicitation is the offence of 'hiring a hitman' and punishable even if no murder happens. If the hitman carries out the murder then both the hitman and client are guilty of murder.
-->
@drafterman
Thats a solid moral argument 🤔
he hit man in question is offering himself up to commit murders. At the end of the story he's killing someone. Maybe not this victim, but a murder is happening at some point.
This is an interesting take, but does the hitman killing someone else besides P2, relevant to whether or not P2 would have been killed, if P1 had not solicited P3 to do so?
I can acknowledge this is a rational basis for holding the hitman more guilty, but it also seems to necessarily remove P1 from consideration in being held with being charged with murder facially.
To my knowledge, wouldnt P1 in all likelihood be charged with "conspiracy to(murder)" while p3 would be charged with "murder" itself?
Wouldn' this argument necessarily preclude P1 from recieving a similar punishment? 🤔
-->
@Buddamoose
Well, P3 would also be charged with "conspiracy." Also, the legal theory of "felony murder" could be argued to apply to P1 as well, making them as legally culpable for P2's death as P3 is.
-->
@drafterman
Also, the legal theory of "felony murder" could be argued to apply to P1 as well, making them as legally culpable for P2's death as P3 is.
Ive never heard of it before. Looked it up, seems like it necessarily would incorporate those who lack the intent of murder 🤔. However, seems wholly applicable to this type of scenario tbh
-->
@Buddamoose
It's not entirely uncontroversial for those reasons, but I can see the legal argument for treating them equally. Morally, however, I think the solicitation is less than the actual murder.
7 days later
-->
@drafterman
I came across a real life case... all involved were charged and convicted of 'vanilla' murder.
1146 days later
-->
@Buddamoose
Should Person 1 or 3 receive the more severe punishment? Should their punishment be equal? Why?
Person 3 is legitimately more scary. However person 3 is basically the gun and person one is pulling the trigger.
There should be a difference in sentencing for sure. Maybe 20 years for person 3 and life or death for person number 1.
I think it just about works out to that IRL anyway
-->
@TwoMan
Equal guilt, first degree murder for both parties. The murder could not happen without the willing participation of both. Without the hiring, the killing would not happen. Without a willing killer, person A could not do the hiring. The sentence would be whatever the state sentence is for murder 1.
The difference is that the killing would happen with or without person 3. If person 3 turned down the money for killing than somebody else would have likely accepted it.
We also have to keep in mind everyone has their price. A list of prices that could be paid to a hit man.
1. $1000
2. $2000
3. I have photos of a crime your relative committed 30 years ago. Kill my wife or My dead man switch ensures she goes to prison for life.
4. I slipped you a slow acting poison and if you murder my wife I will give you the antidote.
Like I said everyone has their price. Person 3 is considerably less guilty
-->
@Wylted
No saying these days.
If Person 1. Was a darker skinned trans lesbian in a wheelchair, and Person 2. was a perfectly ordinary light skinned male, but perhaps a bit over bearing.
Then we have an abusive relationship with all sorts of PC violations.
So Person 3 is undoubtedly motivated by a righteous desire for social justice , especially if they are a Q Inuit with a speech impediment and an abusive father.
Under these compelling circumstances both 1 and 3, would probably get off with a slap on the wrist, and a lucrative book and film deal.
And 2 would be be portrayed as a chainsaw wielding psychopathic homophobe, played by Doug Jones or Chucky.
-->
@secularmerlin
The point is not the heinous nature of the crime as that is a subjective judgement. The point is to protect public safety and choosing the least harsh penalty that would insure it.
If it were somehow possible to be guaranteed that person 1 would never again become a danger to anyone, would you support no punishment at all?
Also, where does deterrence factor into your equation?
Lets imagine for purposes of edification there is a married couple. Person 1 in the married couple is quite unhappy with Person 2. So much so that Person 1 hires(pays) Person 3 to kill Person 2.Person 3 kills person 2. This plot is uncovered by Law Enforcement and both are arrested.
Should Person 1 or 3 be charged with homicide[1], or both? Why?
Person 3. Person 3 killed person 2. Therefore, person 3 is responsible for person 2's murder.
Should Person 1 or 3 receive the more severe punishment? Should their punishment be equal? Why?
Person 1 shouldn't be punished; Person 3 should be obliged to those most damaged by Person 2's loss, which ironically and maybe a twist of fate include Person 1.
What critiques do you have, if any, with how homicide, and its variations, is classified and prosecuted?(in the US) Why?
The manner by which homicide is prosecuted is directly linked to the production of prison labor, especially with its considerations of variations like negligence, RICO conspiracy, and murder for hire. The person who murders is directly responsible unless placed under duress.
-->
@Double_R
If it were somehow possible to be guaranteed that person 1 would never again become a danger to anyone, would you support no punishment at all?
I have little interest in justice whatever that means to you personally.
Also, where does deterrence factor into your equation?
Based on its utility of course. How effective is this deterrent? Is the death penalty really a deterrent? It doesn't seem to me that murder was prevented even in the days of hanging mobs and lynchings.