Murder: When can it be called "Good?"

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Murder is usually considered evil, and is almost never encouraged. However, in scenarios such as death row, murder is usually considered good.

So my question is: when can we draw the line between "good murder" and "evil murder?" Would abortion be considered good or evil? Public execution? Euthanasia?

Or is it always evil, no matter the cause?

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

There is "Good" and "bad" in every thing if we go by the "traditional" definitions. Even in senseless murder of the innocent (which I STRONGLY DISAGREE with) has the advantage of decreasing the surplus human population.

However Murder for Murder is something I normally agree with as a punishment however I disagree with current methods.

Personal I prefer the Guillotine because it is Easy to maintain (just change out the rope and sharpen the blade on occasion.) Cheap to maintain (re: above) Easy to use (I mean real easy). While execution methods such as Lethal injection cost so much it is cheaper to keep them alive in jail for the rest of there life (In my opinion that is kind of sad and that is why I support the guillotine as a method of execution it can help save the tax payers money, granted not at first but in the long run.)

Murder to live (self-defense) is another justification for murder. As well as if you are hungry and there really is no other food.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

There is "Good" and "bad" in every thing if we go by the "traditional" definitions. Even in senseless murder of the innocent (which I STRONGLY DISAGREE with) has the advantage of decreasing the surplus human population.

However Murder for Murder is something I normally agree with as a punishment however I disagree with current methods.

I did mean murder for murder for a "when murder is good" example. Murdering innocent people is obviously wrong. This mainly portains to where the line gets fuzzy, even to a point where you could question your sense of justice.

Murder to live (self-defense) is another justification for murder. As well as if you are hungry and there really is no other food.

Self defense is different from traditional murder, as with the later you attack unprovoked (unless you're a grunge killer), and therefore shouldn't be considered evil.

Murder to live is different. There, your technically killing people to satisfy your desires, whch is selfish, and therefore would probably be "evil".

Just eat them once they're dead of other causes.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I did mean murder for murder for a "when murder is good" example. Murdering innocent people is obviously wrong. This mainly portains to where the line gets fuzzy, even to a point where you could question your sense of justice.

It is wrong, I was giving an example of where how you put it the line gets fuzzy.

Self defense is different from traditional murder, as with the later you attack unprovoked (unless you're a grunge killer), and therefore shouldn't be considered evil.

I can agree with this.

Murder to live is different. There, your technically killing people to satisfy your desires, whch is selfish, and therefore would probably be "evil".

By murder to live, I mean Murdering to survive (Think jungle).

Just eat them once they're dead of other causes.

Well if other causes is by Infection or disease the meal would be bad and there for decreasing your survivability, in WW2 some Japanese soldiers that were camped in the tropical rain forest where forced to go cannibal, but to extend the freshness of the meal they did keep the victim alive while eating his decapitated arm or leg of course the person would eventually die but it is more drawn out.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

It is wrong, I was giving an example of where how you put it the line gets fuzzy.

It actually isn't. Murdering innocent people is wrong no matter what..

By murder to live, I mean Murdering to survive (Think jungle).

There are no morals in the jungle, thus no good or evil, thus making it impossible to decide if something is good or bad in the jungle.

Well if other causes is by Infection or disease the meal would be bad and there for decreasing your survivability, in WW2 some Japanese soldiers that were camped in the tropical rain forest where forced to go cannibal, but to extend the freshness of the meal they did keep the victim alive while eating his decapitated arm or leg of course the person would eventually die but it is more drawn out.

They're selfishly eating a commrade's arm or leg. That would be considered evil.

My points are stuff like "kill the basket case to end his suffering". Would ending his suffering be good, or would killing him be bad.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

There are no morals in the jungle, thus no good or evil, thus making it impossible to decide if something is good or bad in the jungle.

What makes the jungle exempt from morality, as opposed to say, the football stadium?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What makes the jungle exempt from morality, as opposed to say, the football stadium?

In the jungle it's practically kill or be killed. At a football stadium, don't people In the stands cheer you on, wich would be a sign of morals?

Also, without morals in a football stadium, people wouldn't care if you get killed or not. However, in real life, isn't it different, and you try not to kill people?

Also, I don't want this to steer off course.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

It actually isn't. Murdering innocent people is wrong no matter what.

If it is to save the planet then the line is getting fuzzy but once again I do agree with you that it is wrong.

There are no morals in the jungle, thus no good or evil, thus making it impossible to decide if something is good or bad in the jungle.

Why are there no morals in a jungle? I understand that the jungle is killed or be killed but how is that different than everyone else we all have killed or sponsored killing at some point at our lives, how else do we eat?

They're selfishly eating a commrade's arm or leg. That would be considered evil.

They were hungry, and they ate the limbs of there enemies as well if that is any consolation. Asides human taste like pork (I really do not care for pork but I love bacon I know weird.)

My points are stuff like "kill the basket case to end his suffering". Would ending his suffering be good, or would killing him be bad.

I did not catch that, so do you wish this to be an euthanasia debate?

If so my opinions on euthanasia are, well, Incomplete would be a word I would use.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

The death penalty is evil. I don't consider that good killing. The only way I see killing a human not as evil is killing one out of self defense. By self defense I mean the other person is trying to kill you.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

So Bob, you think killing someone before they kill you is acceptable, not not after?

The death penalty is mostly to protect the public. If murderers are just let go, they can continue their killing ways. How would you feel if you had a convicted murderer living just down the street from you? And a life sentence in prison (the only other viable option really) is a horrible idea. They may be able to escape. They may be let off on good behavior, which may be an act. And then there's the fact that a life sentence in prison is basically like killing them anyway, except now the taxpayers are paying to feed and clothe them. Even the family of the murder victim is required by law to pay for what murderers need. Death is what they deserve, and for the sake of the public, death is what we need to give them. The methods might be in need of improvement (see Dragoon's guillotine proposal), but the death penalty really is the best option for that.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

So Bob, you think killing someone before they kill you is acceptable, not not after?

The death penalty is mostly to protect the public. If murderers are just let go, they can continue their killing ways. How would you feel if you had a convicted murderer living just down the street from you? And a life sentence in prison (the only other viable option really) is a horrible idea. They may be able to escape. They may be let off on good behavior, which may be an act. And then there's the fact that a life sentence in prison is basically like killing them anyway, except now the taxpayers are paying to feed and clothe them. Even the family of the murder victim is required by law to pay for what murderers need. Death is what they deserve, and for the sake of the public, death is what we need to give them. The methods might be in need of improvement (see Dragoon's guillotine proposal), but the death penalty really is the best option for that.

I was afraid this would turn into a debate about the death penalty. I've already debated against it in another thread, since I'm too lazy to write up the same arguements, I'll paste some of the ones I've said in the other thread combined with new arguements:

The desire to kill is a violent instinct. This is something as human beings in the 21 century we must control.

For the deterrence bull****:

People kill for three reasons: Money, Passion, and Compulsion.

People who kill for money can't be deterred by execution because once there in jail they can't kill for money anymore.

People who kill for passion can't be deterred either because it was usually a moment thing. If they hated a family member and killed them, executing them won't make them be deterred.

People who kill for compulsion are the most sick. The thing is most of these people try to hide their crimes anyway, so they had no fear of the system because they did it anyway.



Take a look at the numbers:
(2007)
Murder rate in death penalty states: 5.83
Murder rate in non death penalty states: 4.1

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dete...r-murder-rates

Canada has a lower death rate then the US with capital punishment abolished.


Many innocents have been placed on death row. Over 100 were saved. This means that over 100 tasty last meals, your tax money didn't have to buy.

Like stated above it would be cheaper to keep them alive then kill them with lethal injection.

Killing them before they kill you prevents them from killing you. If their caught and are in jail, why the hell do we have to kill him/her then? No, we have security prisions for a reason. They ain't breaking out anytime soon.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Bob, not to say your numbers are completely out of date, but do you have the numbers from '09 handy?

People who kill for money won't have a problem with it anymore, because you and I will be paying for them to live uselessly in prison, and I personally have a problem with that.

Those who kill for passion can and WILL kill for passion again, maybe killing someone who is in prison for a less severe reason. The victim would have a limited sentence, and would have perhaps been a productive part of society once they were out.

And why can't those who kill for compulsion mask their reason as one of the other 2, if indeed your argument is true: that compulsion is the only possible reason someone should get the death penalty?

I do agree with the point about innocents being placed on death row, but I think the problem there happens before prison, in the courts.

And it would be cheaper to execute them with a reusable, easy-to-maintain device such as a guillotine than to keep them alive, which in turn is cheaper than injections. Lethal injections being humane is a joke.

 

[Sieguest]

It actually isn't. Murdering innocent people is wrong no matter what..

Anyone who's seen my posts in the abortion thread know exactly where I'm about to go with this.

Why is murdering an innocent person wrong in all circumstances? You're implying that morality is objective, when it isn't. If morality was objective then the whole discussion we had in the "Problem of Evil" thread would have never happened. You can prove that it's not a person's best interest to kill an innocent, but I wager that you can't prove that it is "wrong"

There are no morals in the jungle, thus no good or evil, thus making it impossible to decide if something is good or bad in the jungle.

You can't prove this either. What say you to tribes that live in the jungle? Do they have no morals?

They're selfishly eating a commrade's arm or leg. That would be considered evil.

Once more you're superimposing your own morals as objectively true. See above.

In the jungle it's practically kill or be killed. At a football stadium, don't people In the stands cheer you on, wich would be a sign of morals?

Refer to the source concerning jungle tribes that I posted. Again you're saying that there are no morals in the jungles, which would mean that you're saying these tribes have no morals.

Also, without morals in a football stadium, people wouldn't care if you get killed or not. However, in real life, isn't it different, and you try not to kill people?

That doesn't mean that morality is objective. The presence of morals is apparent, but the existence of an objective morality definitely does not exist. See my first response above.

The desire to kill is a violent instinct. This is something as human beings in the 21 century we must control.

Prove it. If the desire to kill were instinct, then how come babies aren't trying to kill other babies at the moment.

People kill for three reasons: Money, Passion, and Compulsion.

People who kill for money can't be deterred by execution because once there in jail they can't kill for money anymore.

People who kill for passion can't be deterred either because it was usually a moment thing. If they hated a family member and killed them, executing them won't make them be deterred.

People who kill for compulsion are the most sick. The thing is most of these people try to hide their crimes anyway, so they had no fear of the system because they did it anyway.

You've made a gross blanket statement here with absolutely no proof. I'll just say that you're outright wrong. Example being killing in self-defense.

Take a look at the numbers:
(2007)
Murder rate in death penalty states: 5.83
Murder rate in non death penalty states: 4.1

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dete...r-murder-rates

Canada has a lower death rate then the US with capital punishment abolished.


Many innocents have been placed on death row. Over 100 were saved. This means that over 100 tasty last meals, your tax money didn't have to buy.

Like stated above it would be cheaper to keep them alive then kill them with lethal injection.

Killing them before they kill you prevents them from killing you. If their caught and are in jail, why the hell do we have to kill him/her then? No, we have security prisions for a reason. They ain't breaking out anytime soon.

This is true, and this is the only reason why I don't like the death penalty. Mistakes happen and killing an innocent is more than likely not in the best interest of any nation.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Bob, not to say your numbers are completely out of date, but do you have the numbers from '09 handy?

People who kill for money won't have a problem with it anymore, because you and I will be paying for them to live uselessly in prison, and I personally have a problem with that.

Those who kill for passion can and WILL kill for passion again, maybe killing someone who is in prison for a less severe reason. The victim would have a limited sentence, and would have perhaps been a productive part of society once they were out.

And why can't those who kill for compulsion mask their reason as one of the other 2, if indeed your argument is true: that compulsion is the only possible reason someone should get the death penalty?

I do agree with the point about innocents being placed on death row, but I think the problem there happens before prison, in the courts.

And it would be cheaper to execute them with a reusable, easy-to-maintain device such as a guillotine than to keep them alive, which in turn is cheaper than injections. Lethal injections being humane is a joke.

That website had 2007 as the latest year with info. That is the official death penalty site and I really doubt 2 years would really change those records. Especially since if you look at the pattern these last years, the gap gets larger.

Ah for **** sakes, someone steals something. They get put in prision, you'd be pissed off because you're paying taxes to keep the jails running? The prisoner won't have a problem with money anymore you're right. The reason we have prisions is so we can prevent these people from doing these crimes again. So either we pay when their in society and they steal off of us and kill us. Or we pay to keep them in jail. They're in jail, why pay more money to kill them.

Your arguement for killing for passion: well.....no. Some guy bangs your wife and you kill him. Now what........who you gonna kill in jail?

The guillotine is acutally very painful if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Sieguest]

The guillotine is acutally very painful if I'm not mistaken.

Actually no, the Guillotine was rather quick and painless. The way the blade provided for a clean cut.

The part people bring into question is that it's been said by many doctors that a person could remain conscious after being beheaded for up to thirty seconds, but I don't believe they felt pain.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

The guillotine is acutally very painful if I'm not mistaken.

What Prof do you have?

 

[Kirbyoshi]

Bob, my point in bringing up the year is that anomalies can happen from year to year. I did not actually look at the site (confession), but for all I knew, it could have been a spike in the stats.

And where did you hear that the guillotine was painful? I did not hear that at all. And another question: let's just assume that we all support the death penalty for this one question: why should we care how painful it is?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Why is murdering an innocent person wrong in all circumstances? You're implying that morality is objective, when it isn't. If morality was objective then the whole discussion we had in the "Problem of Evil" thread would have never happened. You can prove that it's not a person's best interest to kill an innocent, but I wager that you can't prove that it is "wrong"

Yes, you're probably right about the problem of evil. It would be "wrong" because the person had no intent to die, and it was any person off the street.

If you say it isn't wrong, then what is?

You can't prove this either. What say you to tribes that live in the jungle? Do they have no morals?

The tribesman of the amazon have morals, but my point is that "if you were stuck in a forest, would you hesitate to kill something?"

I don't know if you would call a jungle village part of the jungle (in figurative means), as it is much more civilized than the wilderness.

Why are there no morals in a jungle? I understand that the jungle is killed or be killed but how is that different than everyone else we all have killed or sponsored killing at some point at our lives, how else do we eat?

"Kill or be killed" is the exact reason there is no morals in the jungle. If you hesitate a second, you will get killed. As a result, you have to kill without hesitation.

They were hungry, and they ate the limbs of there enemies as well if that is any consolation. Asides human taste like pork (I really do not care for pork but I love bacon I know weird.)

It's still killing for your own satisfaction.

How do you know what human taste like?

I did not catch that, so do you wish this to be an euthanasia debate?

If so my opinions on euthanasia are, well, Incomplete would be a word I would use.

I was using that as an example of were the line gets fuzzy.

If your info's incomplete, do some research on it.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

@DH: Isn't "Kill or be killed" a moral?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I don't see how. Aren't morals supposed to be respectful? (or something along those lines)

 

[Kirbyoshi]

A moral, simply put, is a principle to live by. There are bad morals, and we should not include those morals in our system. However, animals in general truly have no morals. They don't live by any certain standard, as they are incapable of that level of thinking. They live by pure instinct, not by thought-out morals. An example of the "Kill or be killed" moral in action would be more like the movie "Predators." (Good movie btw) There was a Russian who, in the beginning of the movie, was shooting at the people who eventually became his allies. He of course thought that it was they who dropped him in that jungle, and so he adopted the "Kill or be killed" morality. It is in animals' instincts to kill other animals for food, or to defend themselves when something is trying to kill them.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

A moral, simply put, is a principle to live by.

Isn't that a "philosophy?"

Animals in general truly have no morals. They don't live by any certain standard, as they are incapable of that level of thinking.

There are some animals that can actually think intelligently (it's in the newest issue of time or something like that).

An example of the "Kill or be killed" moral in action would be more like the movie "Predators." (Good movie btw) There was a Russian who, in the beginning of the movie, was shooting at the people who eventually became his allies. He of course thought that it was they who dropped him in that jungle, and so he adopted the "Kill or be killed" morality.

By "kill or be killed" I mean "You're stuck in a jungle. You can either get killed by animals/plants/starvation, or you can kill animals & plants to live."

It is in animals' instincts to kill other animals for food, or to defend themselves when something is trying to kill them.

See my second sentence.

 

[Kirbyoshi]

DH, could you find that article and link me to it/quote a key part of it for me? It would be very interesting to read.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I would, but unfortunately I read it in a magazine, not on the internet.

Edit: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2008759,00.html

 

[Kirbyoshi]

That looks to me like a matter of training, which "rewires," in a sense, an animal's instincts. But they are still its instincts, whether we change them or not. The ape wanted coffee, so he pointed to the picture of the cup of coffee, because he had been trained to do so.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

It's still killing for your own satisfaction.

How do you know what human taste like?

I do my research. (and the sources are trust worthy.)

and could I use you "no morals in the jungle" argument for there is a lot of (non-poisons/uneatable/unhealthy) food there.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I do my research. (and the sources are trust worthy.)

Phew! I actually thought you were a cannibal for a second.

and could I use you "no morals in the jungle" argument for there is a lot of (non-poisons/uneatable/unhealthy) food there.

If you're asking to use my argument somewhere else, then sure.

 

[UltimateHaxor123]

I believe that there are 4 circumstances in which murder could be considered "moral". But before I state them, i'd like to bring up the idea of Framework. From what i've seen in this thread so far, the responses have come down to either "kill or be killed" (pre-emptive) or "execution =bad/good" (the death penalty). However, i feel that we are missing out on one very important inherent aspect of this topic. The morality of the nature of murder. I've read a few post in which people claim that

Murdering innocent people is wrong no matter what..

However, in order determine the "right" from the "wrong" or what's "good" and what's "bad", we must first decide the framework of this debate. Simply, what defines "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong". There are several established frameworks for defining morality (i will go over 2 of them briefly in the next paragraph). For those of you who know a little about philosophy or ethics, then you can probably skip over the next part.

The first is Utilitarianism. This concept was first coined by Jeremy Bentham who stated that that the "good" thing to do was to maximize utility (or "happiness") for society overall. Simply, "The greatest good for the greatest number of people". In this interpretation, the highest concern of any morality should be the society and its total utility. For more information, wikipedia John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham.

The second framework is Deontology. Since it is complicated to explain, for now let's just go with the idea that deontology is the opposite of utilitarianism in that it assumes people have basic rights such as life, liberty, and property and that these rights are universal no matter what sex, race, blah blah blah.

If we go by utilitarianism then there are clearly 4 instances in which murder is not only acceptable but completely warranted. (disclaimer, these are not my original ideas but something i picked up when reading a book called The Ethics of Killing by Jeff McMahan

1) When killing promotes greater good
ex. killing the terrorist in the 9-11 attack before they attacked the twin towers
2) Killing when the victim has already done something that lowers his moral status
ex. killing a murderer (death row)
3) Killing someone/something that is of lower status
ex. embryos, infants, animals, etc.
4) When killing actually benefits the victim
ex. person has terminal cancer and would rather die than suffer

However, if we look at the second framework then killing is always wrong because everyone is entitled to life and liberty.

please respond :D

 

[vVv Rapture]

The first is Utilitarianism. This concept was first coined by Jeremy Bentham who stated that that the "good" thing to do was to maximize utility (or "happiness") for society overall. Simply, "The greatest good for the greatest number of people". In this interpretation, the highest concern of any morality should be the society and its total utility. For more information, wikipedia John Stuart Mill or Jeremy Bentham.

The second framework is Deontology. Since it is complicated to explain, for now let's just go with the idea that deontology is the opposite of utilitarianism in that it assumes people have basic rights such as life, liberty, and property and that these rights are universal no matter what sex, race, blah blah blah.

If we go by utilitarianism then there are clearly 4 instances in which murder is not only acceptable but completely warranted. (disclaimer, these are not my original ideas but something i picked up when reading a book called The Ethics of Killing by Jeff McMahan

1) When killing promotes greater good
ex. killing the terrorist in the 9-11 attack before they attacked the twin towers
2) Killing when the victim has already done something that lowers his moral status
ex. killing a murderer (death row)
3) Killing someone/something that is of lower status
ex. embryos, infants, animals, etc.
4) When killing actually benefits the victim
ex. person has terminal cancer and would rather die than suffer

However, if we look at the second framework then killing is always wrong because everyone is entitled to life and liberty.

please respond :D

I would personally add a fifth instance to that list in which murder is acceptable and warranted:

5) Killing in self defense
ex. Victim killing attacker

Of course, that is if we are referring to murder just as "killing someone or something." If that is the case, a self-defensive killing would still be a murder, but technically justified.

With that said, I'm more on the utilitarianism side. Whether or not killing is "right" or "moral" is completely subjective, as I could kill an attacker to save my own life but still could have immorally ended a person in someone's eyes.

However, it's still completely justified. As I do not want to die, my only option to stop that is from killing whatever is trying to kill me.

The act of murder itself is completely reliant on the situation itself and the justification behind it. It's not very justified to just go out into the woods and kill a small animal for no reason, but it is if I am low on food and need to kill the animal for its meat. Likewise, there is no reason for me to kill a human that is diseased just because he or she is diseased and possibly terminal, as they have every right to live out their lives regardless, but if the person is asking for their life to end because of their condition, it is justified.

We do want to live by good morals and high standards. No one should be killing things and trying to justify them doing so later. In a sense, maybe even what is justified and what isn't is subjective. And, if that is the case, there is really no way to know if murder, in any sense, can be good or bad universally.

"A man who kills on his own is a murderer. A man who kills at his government's request is a national hero. "
-Ramman Kenoun

It may be right to some, it may not be to others.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

1) When killing promotes greater good
ex. killing the terrorist in the 9-11 attack before they attacked the twin towers
2) Killing when the victim has already done something that lowers his moral status
ex. killing a murderer (death row)
3) Killing someone/something that is of lower status
ex. embryos, infants, animals, etc.
4) When killing actually benefits the victim
ex. person has terminal cancer and would rather die than suffer

I agree with all of these except number 3. Slaves were of lower status than humans. Does it make it all right to kill slaves?

However, if we look at the second framework then killing is always wrong because everyone is entitled to life and liberty.

Though I would agree with this, an exception should be made for a murderer. He/she had taken the life and liberty of someone else, and therefore should have their life and liberty taken to see how it feels.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I agree with all of these except number 3. Slaves were of lower status than humans. Does it make it all right to kill slaves?

Depends on who you ask. Now, from are "enlightened" point of view it is wrong (I will also agree that it is wrong), however from their point of view the slave owners they where not completely human (I.E. lower status) and slave owners could kill their slaves without any (remember from their perspective) moral wrong doing.

Though I would agree with this, an exception should be made for a murderer. He/she had taken the life and liberty of someone else, and therefore should have their life and liberty taken to see how it feels.

Or, not every one is entitled to liberty and freedom. I agree with you that murders should be punished, however "liberty" and "freedom" (As you would think of it.) is something you or an ancestor had to pay and sacrifice for, weather it be war, strife, or blood. There for, no one is entitled to "freedom" you have to earn it, unless of course you are one of the lucky ones who's ancestors did the sacrifice in that case it comes with a really odd cost witch I am not going to get into right now, as it is irrelevant to my argument.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Wheres the proof when people say capital punishment prevents more murders and is beneficial. I'm just explaining the reasons of why people kill and why killing them won't do any good. I haven't seen any proof for deterrence. I've put in the numbers that have shown the opposite.

EDIT: About the guillotine it is certainly not painless. The guillotine was used a lot during the French Revolution. During that time period scientists asked the condemned to blink several times after being beheaded. The subjects would blink 10-30 seconds afterwards. A man actually called out the name of his beheaded friend and recieved a conscious response.

The medical answer is that the head survives for around 13 seconds. It's the lack of oxygen reaching the brain that kills it, rather then just removing the it from the neck. Therfore the victim will experience the terrible pain of a severed neck. This is not humane and painless.

Sources: http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thefrenchrevolution/a/dyk10.htm

http://aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm

 

[BOB SAGET!]

bump...........................come on, someone try to counter my arguements!

 

[abhishekh]

Murder is never just. The right to life is the right we ought to entitle all humans with, regardless of anything. Murder is inhumane and rarely achieves anything good, especially when used as punishment.

Basically, I'm defining murder as the killing of someone else when they didn't want to be killed, with malice a fore-thought (or something like that, I forget how the actual phrase goes).

I do feel sorry for the countries that -need- to kill their violent prisoners because they cannot afford to keep them alive, but that might be able to be changed by using prisoners for labor or something, but the line begins to blur there. There's also the utilitarian thing, where you sacrifice one life for the lives of many as well, but a lot of people would argue against that as well.

I find it really peculiar that people tend to view prison as a punishment rather than reformation and rehabilitation of prisoners. I mean, if you're just going out to punish people you might as well be killing them instead of handing out life sentences.

 

[Crazy Cloud]

Wheres the proof when people say capital punishment prevents more murders and is beneficial. I'm just explaining the reasons of why people kill and why killing them won't do any good. I haven't seen any proof for deterrence. I've put in the numbers that have shown the opposite.

EDIT: About the guillotine it is certainly not painless. The guillotine was used a lot during the French Revolution. During that time period scientists asked the condemned to blink several times after being beheaded. The subjects would blink 10-30 seconds afterwards. A man actually called out the name of his beheaded friend and recieved a conscious response.

The medical answer is that the head survives for around 13 seconds. It's the lack of oxygen reaching the brain that kills it, rather then just removing the it from the neck. Therfore the victim will experience the terrible pain of a severed neck. This is not humane and painless.

Sources: http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/thefrenchrevolution/a/dyk10.htm

http://aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm

I can't quite find a source for it, although I've read it online somewhere. The purpose of the guillotine originating in France was to kill "would be" vampires. Hokey, I know, and convenient with the whole vampire "craze" these days to make up a rumor about them. It's also why another form of execution, burned at the stake, was invented too. Although it's more popularly associated with executing "witches".

It's stated that when Anne Boleyn's head was severed, she was still in prayer. That her lips were still moving for up to a minute [1]. If it were so painful, then I find it hard to believe that she wouldn't stop her praying. It's not exactly possible to tell, either way. A decapitation would have to be performed, with some sort of scan to detect trauma in the brain. But those who would have the technology, would never study an inhumane study and trivial matter as that. There's just as many rumors surrounding both claims.

As for it being painful. Let's address Suffocation. Suffocation is painful due to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream [2]. If a head is decapitated, there is no build-up of carbon dioxide, due to a lack of lungs. No inhaling, no exhaling. So that's ruled out.

As far as it being nerve related. There's no proof that it's painful. Infact, if the stories are to be believed of activity in a living-head (IE; Attempted speech, blinking, self-awareness), it doesn't make sense that those things would happen. And yet there's recent accounts [3] of them being consciously alert. Things that hurt severely induce shock, and a person loses consciousness. Your source you provided did not address the guillotine in it's relation of beheading and suffering. It gave an example of an axe and knife being used. A connection was never established with the guillotine before the point was dropped.



Sources
[1] - "http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/may-19-1536-anne-boleyns-execution/685/"
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation
[3] - http://aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm

 

[BOB SAGET!]

I can't quite find a source for it, although I've read it online somewhere. The purpose of the guillotine originating in France was to kill "would be" vampires. Hokey, I know, and convenient with the whole vampire "craze" these days to make up a rumor about them. It's also why another form of execution, burned at the stake, was invented too. Although it's more popularly associated with executing "witches".

It's stated that when Anne Boleyn's head was severed, she was still in prayer. That her lips were still moving for up to a minute [1]. If it were so painful, then I find it hard to believe that she wouldn't stop her praying. It's not exactly possible to tell, either way. A decapitation would have to be performed, with some sort of scan to detect trauma in the brain. But those who would have the technology, would never study an inhumane study and trivial matter as that. There's just as many rumors surrounding both claims.

As for it being painful. Let's address Suffocation. Suffocation is painful due to a build-up of carbon dioxide in the bloodstream [2]. If a head is decapitated, there is no build-up of carbon dioxide, due to a lack of lungs. No inhaling, no exhaling. So that's ruled out.

As far as it being nerve related. There's no proof that it's painful. Infact, if the stories are to be believed of activity in a living-head (IE; Attempted speech, blinking, self-awareness), it doesn't make sense that those things would happen. And yet there's recent accounts [3] of them being consciously alert. Things that hurt severely induce shock, and a person loses consciousness. Your source you provided did not address the guillotine in it's relation of beheading and suffering. It gave an example of an axe and knife being used. A connection was never established with the guillotine before the point was dropped.



Sources
[1] - "http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/may-19-1536-anne-boleyns-execution/685/"
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation
[3] - http://aintnowaytogo.com/beheading.htm

It is not guarranteed that a person would lose consciousness, like my source stated it is possible for someone to be conscious for those 13 seconds. It all depends on how much oxygen was in the brain. However it seems very possible that many people will feel intense pain,

Both my sources adressed the guillotine, and how painful it can be. Where did you find no connection?

Never use wikipedia as a source. I seriously doubt the info you got was correct.

 

[Crazy Cloud]

It is not guarranteed that a person would lose consciousness, like my source stated it is possible for someone to be conscious for those 13 seconds. It all depends on how much oxygen was in the brain. However it seems very possible that many people will feel intense pain,

Both my sources adressed the guillotine, and how painful it can be. Where did you find no connection?

Never use wikipedia as a source. I seriously doubt the info you got was correct.

Had a reply written up, and opera crashed . This'll be more brief.

Your first source addressed consciousness after decapitation after use of a guillotine. It didn't address if any pain was involved. The second source said that beheading is painful, and gave an equation of how much pain was involved. The less skilled an executioner was, the more painful the death. By using their equation, the perfect skill of a guillotine should lead to little pain.

I'm sure there is some pain involved. It's cutting through the skin, nerves, arteries, bone, and the brain stem. However, if all of that was felt until the person died from lack of oxygen, I doubt there would be any of the stories out there. The man in 1905 that was decapitated, made eye contact two times before dying. Anne Boleyn's praying. And the other dozen stories out there. The bottom line is, there's nothing out there that specifically states how badly it hurts.

On a side note;

Wikipedia isn't taken as a creditable source here? I'll make sure and not use them next time. Thanks for the heads up :D

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

No, wikipedia is a very creditable source here.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

No, wikipedia is a very credible source here.

Fixed for Grammar Nazis.

As with all sources, use it in moderation though.

 

[BOB SAGET!]

Had a reply written up, and opera crashed . This'll be more brief.

Your first source addressed consciousness after decapitation after use of a guillotine. It didn't address if any pain was involved. The second source said that beheading is painful, and gave an equation of how much pain was involved. The less skilled an executioner was, the more painful the death. By using their equation, the perfect skill of a guillotine should lead to little pain.

I'm sure there is some pain involved. It's cutting through the skin, nerves, arteries, bone, and the brain stem. However, if all of that was felt until the person died from lack of oxygen, I doubt there would be any of the stories out there. The man in 1905 that was decapitated, made eye contact two times before dying. Anne Boleyn's praying. And the other dozen stories out there. The bottom line is, there's nothing out there that specifically states how badly it hurts.

On a side note;

Wikipedia isn't taken as a creditable source here? I'll make sure and not use them next time. Thanks for the heads up :D

If your brain is conscious then you're going to feel pain. Unless there's some sort of numbing effect.

It didn't say little pain. It said "Guillotining was considered more humane because the blade was sharper and execution was more rapid than accomplished with an axe." Notice how it said "considered" and not is. Anyway, even if it were less pain, I seriously doubt cutting through those nerves, arteries, bone, and the brain stem would cause "little pain."

There isn't but it is agreed that beheading can cause excruciating pain. Therfore it isn't a "humane" form of capital punishment.

I always thought wikipedia isn't used as a credible source here........I remeber seeing a post of someone saying that.