Political Discussions
Legalizing Murder
Posted by jeremyjanson • 8/07/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: ecoterrorism, funny business, humor, initiative process, murder
You know, I was thining, because murder is a state law, it would be very easy to legalize it by initiative. So, let's have an intelligent and thoughtful debate on the topic of legalizing murder. I want Pro & Con Arguments and intelligent and thoughtful debate from both sides. That's right, no funny business.
User Comments
-
I'm pretty sure that murder is a federal crime but I'll go with your premise.
Pro (based on assume that legal murder is embraced in a big way)
Reduce dependance on foreign oil
Reduce green house gas emissions
Reduce unemployment
Viable alternative to abortion
Cons (these are harder)
Increase in price of bullets
More people violate littering laws (if they don't pick up bodies) -
Murder is perfectly legal in the united states... as long as it occurs while fulfilling the duties of a corporate executive
csx-sucks.com/news/-
Yep.
-
-
What kind of murder are you talking about? It's too general of a term for your debate.
(There are also types of "murder" that are legal, such as self defense)-
Well we can have more then two available opinnions of course. I myself take the moderate position. But yeah, it could be murder for dressing like gangsters, it could be murder for being offended (the PC crowd would love this), it could be murder for anything....
-
What I mean to say is that there are legal distinctions regarding "murder".
Homicide, manslaughter, self defense, involuntary manslaughter - different degrees of each... because every incident has extenuating circumstances. -
Okay, sure. Well, we don't want to legalize manslaughter because that's just a new crime slapped on when your misdemeanor leads to someone dying, and is thus an important legal distinction. Let's stick with homicide, and if you commit a misdemeanor in the course of homicide, we'll call it manslaughter with stupidity.
-
Manslaughter with stupidity
OK, now what was the original question again? AH, right - legalizing murder: pro's and con's.
I don't know that legalizing murder(homicide) would actually raise or lower murder rates, truth be told. I think that most people are rather hardwired one way or the other unless they're put into a desperate situation.
The only con I can see to it is that the small percentage of homicides that are actually tried and end up with a conviction offers some support and closure for the victim's family - even if it's monetary support through their loss. -
But see, a lot of people do get stopped by murder laws. Why just think of all those poor desperate wives subjected to abusive (or annoying) husbands, with good ol' kitchen utensils close to the hand and perfect knowledge of what to do with the body, chained up by legal authority. And think of all those drug dealers who were told they would get $50, and were given 40 instead! Poor drug dealers. How much more fair it would be if they could just use Mr. Boom Boom to fix their problems! And think of all those annoying bad drivers on the freeway... The list goes on!
Why I'll bet someone's even wanted to kill you a few times! -
I guess I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
Laws don't physically restrict anyone from doing anything - drug dealers murder all the time, and domestic violence gets ugly and murderous, too.
Those who will, do. All others seem to be able to control themselves. -
They are able to control themselves, but the laws give them incentive to. Especially when the morality of commiting the crime is not as negative as usual and more morally justifiable (ie. abusive husband.)
-
Nah, I don't believe that for a minute. There were times when wife abuse was perfectly legal, yet it wasn't actually common (No more so than now, actually).
The only difference that the law makes is the type of revenge - I mean justice - that the victim or victim's families get.
If you were talking about things that are illegal/legal that are not violent crimes - such as smoking pot, drinking alcohol, speed limits etc and so forth - I would agree because there is really a fine line between right and wrong on many levels. But for violent crimes you either have it in you or you don't. Laws don't seem to change that, save for maybe people who want to be violent cover it up better. (But not really ) -
maybe a point could be made as far as viewing criminal justice in terms of treatment. Though I'm not sure how that could be applied to those who exhibit no sense of conscience (psychopaths), white collar criminals, and the like. *shrugs*
-
@Anok...you say, "There were times when wife abuse was perfectly legal, yet it wasn't actually common (No more so than now, actually)."
Really? It wasn't common? Do you have any studies showing this? And are you saying that wife abuse is not common now? -
Common as in common place. Like a TV - one in every home. If I had to argue it I'd say it's about the same numbers now as before (proportionately speaking, of course) - just like adultery, rape and sex scandals.
The fact that something is legal or illegal doesn't really change a person's willingness to do it. It wouldn't matter how legal rape is, I know more than a few men who would never, ever do it. Nor abuse women (or their respective boyfriends and women with their girlfriends - you get the picture), nor with their children etc and so forth.
You see what I'm saying? You either have it in you or you don't - laws don't seem to stop or encourage anyone from going through with violent acts. -
I think I might understand where you thought you were going, but to say that abuse (without defining the type) used to be legal, but wasn't common is a very weak statement. I mean it encompasses too much. It is far too general. You might say that in your experiences, abuse isn't common. But you cannot speak for millions of other people. Especially when talking about past tense, I mean you just can't be intellectually honest and make that statement.
That was what I meant. -
I think within the context of the thread, though it makes sense.
Just because it was legal to beat your wife doesn't mean that everyone did - no more so than now. And just because it was made illegal doesn't mean that wife abuse stopped - no more so than before. -
And I was just saying that you have no way of knowing how often it did or didn't happen.
-
From historical references, stories, and personal stories of those growing up during the early 1900's you get a pretty clear picture though, that abuse was certainly not commonplace. Specific numbers? No. A good idea of how things were overall? Yes.
-
That's very subjective reasoning. One could use the same argument saying that the women's rights movement came out of the desire of females to get out from under the oppression of men. That oppression was in many forms, financial, political, and of course what we would consider domestic violence. It was a lot more common place than you realize, hon. A lot more.
"By the 1870.s wife beating was illegal in most states. With the 1800's came a variety of legal sanctions for battering, although often these laws were not enforced. Nevada law held that a batterer convicted for the first time would be tied to a post erected in the county seat for two to ten hours. A Maryland law prescribed that 40 lashes or one year in prison for wife beaters. and several states decreed that battering be punished with up to 30 lashes at a whipping post."
personal.atl.bellsouth.net/s/a/sash86/Main Pages/History.htm
If it weren' common place, why did they have such harsh punishments?
"Common law and written statues in the late 1800's in the US regulated, but did not prohibit, the abuse of women and children. It was considered the duty of males to control their households and property. Within their own judgment and standards, men were allowed to use physical violence to discipline their family or household member."
www.bookrags.com/essay-2005/6/18/174750/573
"# In the United States, throughout the 1800s, state laws and cultural practices continued to support a man's right to discipline his wife. In fact, it wasn't until 1895 that a woman could even divorce her husband on grounds of abuse."
www.emedicinehealth.com/domestic_violence/article_em.htm
I understand the point you were trying to make, but slow down and think about what you said. Domestic violence has been with us for hundreds, make that thousands of years. To say that it only became a problem in modern times is crazy.
-
-
One could argue against legalized murder because corpses turn to carbon and that would contribute to global climate warming change.
Unless Gore invested in a chain of funeral homes. In the event of that happening, we might see it on the docket this fall...-
on the flip side, every breath is a carbon emission... just sayin
those 6.5 Billion people have one heck of a carbon footprint, which brings us back to the OP... o.0 -
We don't need a funeral home, FEMA Has the vaults ready to go. -
what are you referencing there, csi?
-
We could make them in to Soylent Green.
-
Ah, yes... we could have a Soylent Green Economy
-
Or a Soylent Green Public Option.
-
but they wouldn't make it from downer-people... could be a health hazard! o_0
-
Never stopped us before.
-
damned deregulation!
-
Somebody circulate a memo.
-
"Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them!"
-
No you don't. I'm gonna stop you and feed you to the machine. I'll eat you for breakfast.
-
jeremy, you forgot to say, "I'm gonna stop you and feed you to the machine. I'll do it Obama self!"
-
thread killer -
I'm gonna kill the thread killer:
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
