Trial by Fire - a case of death penalty in Texas

[Razgovory]

I didn't think so.  I wasn't sure how that was always handled.  So if the US signed a treaty that banned execution and executed a guy anyway that could make it a murder right?

It would be an extrajudicial execution, so it would be murder.  The "US" couldn't execute anyone in violation of the law; it would have to be a person or persons doing this as private individuals rather than government officials.

Are you saying that the word "execute" is mutually exclusive with illegality?

[grumbler]

Are you saying that the word "execute" is mutually exclusive with illegality?

Not execute, but "judicial execution."  If someone is executed in violation of the law, it cannot be a judicial execution, by definition.

[Razgovory]

Ahh.  Thank you for clearing that up.

I was thinking on this subject earlier today.  It occurs to me that using A's reasoning would lead to a bit of trouble.  If say, a legal execution by the state was the moral equivalent to say a man cold bloodedly killing his wife then it puts us citizens in a bind.  Since I may be morally obligated to stop the man from killing his wife, even to the point of using lethal force would I not be so obligated to save the prisoner on death row?  I'd rather not have to charge the local penitentiary guards for the sake of some gangster.

[DGuller]

Ahh.  Thank you for clearing that up.

I was thinking on this subject earlier today.  It occurs to me that using A's reasoning would lead to a bit of trouble.  If say, a legal execution by the state was the moral equivalent to say a man cold bloodedly killing his wife then it puts us citizens in a bind.  Since I may be morally obligated to stop the man from killing his wife, even to the point of using lethal force would I not be so obligated to save the prisoner on death row?  I'd rather not have to charge the local penitentiary guards for the sake of some gangster.

It will also lead to an infinite loop that will depopulate the entire country.  The wife murder gets executed, then his executioners get executed, then the executioners of the executioners get executed, then the executioners of the executioners of the executioners get executed, and so on.

[grumbler]

Ahh.  Thank you for clearing that up.

I was thinking on this subject earlier today.  It occurs to me that using A's reasoning would lead to a bit of trouble.  If say, a legal execution by the state was the moral equivalent to say a man cold bloodedly killing his wife then it puts us citizens in a bind.  Since I may be morally obligated to stop the man from killing his wife, even to the point of using lethal force would I not be so obligated to save the prisoner on death row?  I'd rather not have to charge the local penitentiary guards for the sake of some gangster.

You are not morally obliged to stop a man from killing his wife, if the only means to do so is killing him.  In fact, it would be murder for you to do so, according to Agelastus.  Ditto for saving a man on death row.  Remember that, according to Agelastus, self defense is the sole exception to the rule that killing someone deliberately is murder.  Hell, you could have killed the 9-11 hijackers and saved all the people in the World Trade Center, and been a murderer for doing so if your own life was not in danger from them.

[Caliga]

I have not followed this whole thread so forgive me for asking if it's obvious from earlier posts, but is Agelastus's position that killing of another human being = murder?  If so I have never heard this argument before.

[DontSayBanana]

Intentional deprivation of life, apparently.  The question seems to be for him whether or not the state has authority to justify deprivation of life, and he's come down firmly against.  From what I've seen, it's a fairly common approach among legal naturalists, who maintain that the Constitution is subordinate to some ethereal, inviolate "natural law of society."

[Berkut]

I have not followed this whole thread so forgive me for asking if it's obvious from earlier posts, but is Agelastus's position that killing of another human being = murder?  If so I have never heard this argument before.

All you have to understand is that Age thinks that the words "murder" and "homicide" are synonyms.

All you have to do is replace "murder" with "homicide" in his arguments, add in the moral implications of murder to the word homicide (which is why he doesn't just use the word homicide of course) and then you can understand the form of his argument.

The content will still be beyond you, since it doesn't make any logical or rational sense, however.

[Razgovory]

I was for the death penalty up until recently (this case had something to do with it), but really I don't care much either way.  It's not something I worry about on a daily basis.

[grumbler]

I have not followed this whole thread so forgive me for asking if it's obvious from earlier posts, but is Agelastus's position that killing of another human being = murder?  If so I have never heard this argument before.

No, it is that the death penalty is murder.  All forms of killing beside judicial execution are apparently some subset of a mysteriously all-encompassing concept of "self defense."

I have never heard this argument before, either.  It is based on a private definition of murder, though, so one wouldn't expect to have heard of it.

[Caliga]

But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?

I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.

[grumbler]

But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?

I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.

Agelastus's argument is that the legal definition for murder is bogus because it allow the death penalty, and that he personally uses a new and better private definition which includes judicial execution.

[Razgovory]

But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?

I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.

Agelastus's argument is that the legal definition for murder is bogus because it allow the death penalty, and that he personally uses a new and better private definition which includes judicial execution.

Well lets not pretend he's the only one on languish that has his personal defintion of words that don't jive with everyone elses.

[Neil]

But... since murder is a legal term, how can the death penalty be murder if it is conducted by the state which by definition gets to decide what is murder and what isn't?

I can see the argument that execution is "wrong" or maybe unethical or immoral, but not that it is a form of murder.

Agelastus's argument is that the legal definition for murder is bogus because it allow the death penalty, and that he personally uses a new and better private definition which includes judicial execution.

Well lets not pretend he's the only one on languish that has his personal defintion of words that don't jive with everyone elses.

Indeed.  Like the way Tim uses 'dreadnaught' in place of 'dreadnought'.