A Moral Question Involving Homicide

Author: Buddamoose

Posts

Total: 86
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,109
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
I have little interest in justice whatever that means to you personally.
I take that as a no, which is quite extreme. It’s to suggest that if someone were to say, murder your child, you would be fine with that person going on to live their life as if nothing happened provided they don’t do it to anyone else. You’re entitled to that view though.

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. 
That’s a red herring and I’m sure you know that. We’re not talking about prevention, we’re talking about deterrence.

We’re also not talking about the death penalty. I think it’s pretty well established that the death penalty does little to nothing to deter murder which makes sense because compared to life in prison, the person if caught will essentially lose the remainder of their life either way. But getting caught is irrelevant if there is effectively no punishment at all.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
I take that as a no, which is quite extreme. It’s to suggest that if someone were to say, murder your child, you would be fine with that person going on to live their life as if nothing happened provided they don’t do it to anyone else. You’re entitled to that view though.
I understand the emotional reaction from losing a loved one and would likely have a very visceral reaction... which is exactly why my judgement would be impaired and I should under no circumstances be allowed to have a say in the verdict or the sentencing in the case.
We’re also not talking about the death penalty. I think it’s pretty well established that the death penalty does little to nothing to deter murder which makes sense because compared to life in prison, the person if caught will essentially lose the remainder of their life either way. But getting caught is irrelevant if there is effectively no punishment at all.
IF the death penalty does little or nothing to deter murder AND effectively no punishment at all does little or nothing to deter murder THEN there is no benefit to the death penalty beyond no punishment whatsoever. 

In any case I am not opposed to taking steps to prevent further murder. You are the one who specifically created a hypothetical where "it were somehow possible to be guaranteed that person 1 would never again become a danger to anyone". That is not generally the case. In general the public should be protected from murders. (You will notice my focus is on protecting the public and not on punishing the guilty).
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
(You will notice my focus is on protecting the public and not on punishing the guilty).

' eye for an eye ' leaves whole world blind? eye} ( * ) > (   ) {no eye

Do any animals, other than human, practice the above policy? I dont think so.








secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Do any animals, other than human, practice the above policy? I dont think so.
Well elephants and crows are both known to hold a grudge but it is unclear to what degree they are assigning guilt.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
Well elephants and crows are both known to hold a grudge but it is unclear to what degree they are assigning guilt.

Ok, that is news to me. 

..." a persistent feeling of ill will or resentment resulting from a past insult or injury.
............"she held a grudge against her former boss".............

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc

There are a whole host of articles like this about crows and elephants trainers have long known that their charges apparently remember someone who has done them injury and react aggressively. 
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
There are a whole host of articles like this about crows and elephants trainers have long known that their charges apparently remember someone who has done them injury and react aggressively.

Ok but that is a little differrent from and eye for and eye, when the human takes the eye/life or some one other than who did them harm i.e. the peson takes eye/life of some one close to the person who has offended them by taking their eye/etc.

Ex you a person takes another persons purse, so that person then goes and takes the other persons wifes purse etc.


secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@ebuc
Shrug

I said it was unclear to what degree the animals are motivated by revenge.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@secularmerlin
I said it was unclear to what degree the animals are motivated by revenge.

Copy that.

Eye for and eye may translate to an eye beyond the directly immediate two, or more parties involved.

This evidence of more complex access to mind/intellect/ego etc, ergo, the human animal, as previously stated.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Remembering and acting aggressively, is remembering and acting aggressively.

Not really a grudge.....More like remembering and acting defensively.

Just remembering really.

Clever Crow......Never split the atom or invented a bullet proof vest though.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Not really a grudge.....More like remembering and acting defensively.
What exactly is the practical difference between the two?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Well if you relate it to human terms then the difference is obvious.

If you held a grudge....Would that be  defensive.

The animal response would be instinctive, whereas the human response is intellectual.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
The animal response would be instinctive, whereas the human response is intellectual.
I remain unconvinced that humans react intellectually to being done injury. I think humans instinctively too. You may be unnecessarily splitting hairs here. 
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,355
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ebuc
All apes use revenge as a form of justice, it's a very primate-based concept. 

Other animals tend to have consistent bullies and victims, primates are one of the only to have people shift in the social hierarchy and often aggression is a positive motive to do that and apes are the primates that consistently have that.

Baboons tend to only have revenge among the alphas but apes (baboons are primates but not apes) have even timid apes use their 'allies' to hurt someone that has hurt them.
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,940
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
From a lawyer pov. 
If  P1 is a female then its only commen sense that she was being abused by P2 for years. 
P2 would throw her around the house giving her black eyes.
P2 would viciously rape her everyday.  
P2 even touched the kids. 

Sooooo  P1 should do 8 years with a min of 5 for soliciting. Or whatever  hiring a hitnan charge is . 
Which. 
Which she also did not do. 
Apparently P3 was in love with P1 and he did it for sexual reason. But thats another story. 
P3  gets 25 years. 

Andddddddddd. 

You ask a " moral " question that involves dealings with law so that takes my morals out of it. 
Morals shouldn't , dont  allocate time. 
severity.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,198
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@RationalMadman
All apes use revenge as a form of justice, it's a very primate-based concept. 

Now that you mention that, I do seem to recall a show, that portrayed that behavior.

Still it is more of hierarchical system of order, and not as much of the human eye-for-eye :--( @ } > = <  { @  )--:   morality based behaviour.

Thanks for the reminder tho, of their hierarchical system.  There is that to less obvious degree in all groups of animals.


zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I was simply suggesting that a "grudge" is different to a defensive response.


Let me put it another way:

Does the Crow go back to it's roost in an evening and sit brooding over how it will get the bastard next time he sees it?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Does the Crow go back to it's roost in an evening and sit brooding over how it will get the bastard next time he sees it?
I don't know how I would confirm or deny that but the "grudge" would seem to be multi generational. 

67 days later

Username
Username's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 755
3
6
11
Username's avatar
Username
3
6
11
-->
@Buddamoose
I can't see a significant moral difference between the actions of Person 1 and 3. Unfortunately, punishments from current legal systems can never totally match with the degree of immorality of the crime, so I wouldn't be upset if their sentences were different unless the difference was unnecessarily extreme 
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,893
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Buddamoose
I’m going into this with no idea how law surrounding this works.

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?
Only Person 3. Person 3 was the sole actor in the murder.

Should Person 1 or 3 receive the more severe punishment? Should their punishment be equal? Why? 
The punishment of imprisonment should be equal, assuming everything was straightforward.

Person 1 actively/knowingly incentivised the murder through a neutral transaction. 

What critiques do you have, if any, with how homicide, and its variations, is classified and prosecuted?(in the US) Why?

If none, what aspects are particularly appealing? Why? 

I do not know.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
Both guilty, but under different charges. 1 should be guilty under the planning of a murder, and 3 is guilty under actual murder. Both should be close to equal, I guess.
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,839
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@ebuc

yhjrtyher
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Since the purposes of establishing degrees in murders have to do with intent since it was the intent for both of them to make the second person dead, through the planning I would find them guilty of the same offense as far as I'm concerned. As a jury member I would vote first degree for both of them.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I too would vote first degree for both of them.
sui_generis
sui_generis's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 191
0
2
5
sui_generis's avatar
sui_generis
0
2
5
-->
@Buddamoose
surprisingly, an excellent question… I'll have to think about that. (upon noticing who wrote the post — less surprising)
sui_generis
sui_generis's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 191
0
2
5
sui_generis's avatar
sui_generis
0
2
5
actually I just realized my answer with next-to-no-thought lmao.

P1 & P3 are equally guilty of murder. 

P1 should be sentenced to the punishment for murder, augmented in light of the malice aforethought involved in hiring an assassin.

P3 should be sentenced to the punishment for murder, augmented in light of the greedy disregard for life.

~ ~ ~
reasoning

in my view, intentionally bringing about the death of another via violation of their innate right to not-be-killed (a definition which, intentionally, excludes actions like self-defense) defines a subset of the actions I'd call "murder". (it's a fuzzy definition that I could hone to higher definition but I feel no need here and I'm lazy)

murder is immoral and should be [remain] criminalized (within the bounds of applicable epistemic standards — one may be guilty of murder without having met any reasonable or coherent hypothetical legal standard for such). in this example, Person 1 ("P1")  murders P2 by hiring P3 to execute the execution. 

we can see that they are equally guilty of the act of murder through comparison to parallels.

  • if PX intentionally, repeatedly, inserts & extracts of a portion of steel into PY's chest, perforating PY's heart such that it stops beating, PX is guilty of murder. that PX used an implement to effect the murder is immaterial. 
  • if PX intentionally bails out of a car that is left heading, driverless, on a course where it will run over PY, then PX is guilty of murder. that PX used an implement that didn't require his continuous, active intent to effect the murder is immaterial. if, after bailing out, PX immediately realizes his error and begins running after the car, making all possible effort to avoid the murder he'd set in motion, but fails, PX is still guilty. 
  • if PX works in a dangerous industrial environment, and removes a safety lock-out for a machine in which PY is working, such that PZ comes and turns on the machine, killing PY, PX is guilty of murder. that the final impulse of human will effecting the death of PY belonged to PZ instead of PX is immaterial
notable aside:
if PX works in a dangerous industrial environment, and, instead of manually removing a safety lock-out, by complete chance notices that PY failed to properly lock-out their own work environment such that, when PZ comes to turn on the machine, PY will die, PX will be guilty of murder. that PX took no positive action to bring about what was PY's impending death is immaterial.
however, this can only be morally condemned, and cannot be legally condemned. so-called Good Samaritan laws are virtually always wrong-headed as far as I can tell. 

aside to the aside—this does not morally preclude justice being enacted as if in a tribal village, where the nuances of individual cases are given more careful consideration and thus can afford the case-by-case evaluation that must occur to allow for, shall we say, a guilty verdict
  • if PX works in a dangerous industrial environment, and , and then, with personal assurances, beckons PZ come remove the safety lock-out for a machine in which PY is working and turn on the machine when no one would otherwise have done so, killing PY, PX is guilty of murder. that the final impulse of human will effecting the death of PY belonged to PZ instead of PX is immaterial.
  • and finally, if PX beckons PZ to come and murder PY, and PZ does so when they would demonstrably not otherwise have, then both PX & PZ have committed murder. that the final impulse of human will effecting the death of PY belonged to PZ instead of PX is immaterial.
while you can build the rest of the argument for yourself — I just encountered a problem while writing the last one… 

~ ~ ~

I REALLY need to go to work so I can't build this out so I'll let y'all take it and run with it for the time being, but: how tenuous can the causality be before it ceases to be strong enough to support culpability? 

  • am I, in the crowd of a street brawl screaming "kill him", guilty of murder? what if the actual murderous brawler wouldn't have hit quite as hard or as many times without the jeers?
  • am I guilty of murder if I know that the meter man comes to check the meter at a random time once a decade when I throw a bucket of knives out the window that's a story above the meter and it JUST HAPPENS to be the day he's there, at the exact time? what if he comes once every year instead of every decade? month? day? once every minute? 
  • am I guilty of murder if I give birth to someone who grows up to murder of someone?
I have ideas to answer all of the above, but like I said, gotta go