|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 21, 2009 14:01:58 GMT -6
I know that it sounds awful but it's the truth. . Yes it sounds awful and no it's not the truth.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 22, 2009 18:29:34 GMT -6
Supposedly, we learn from history. A murderer's history is he murdered. Yes but most probably he won't do so again. It's the rare cases of recidivism which go through the media and make it seem like it's the rule and not the very unlikely exception. In the vast majority of cases there won't be another victim. Most murders happen out of relationships and fights connected to that. I'm not in favour of letting out people who have murdererd for sexual reasons for example. Nothing is safe, absolutely nothing. I wouldn't necessarily trust someone who has never committed a crime more than a convicted murderer. If I had kids I would rather have a mafia boss look after them than a Catholic priest. Also you can check them while they are free. You have their fingerprints, their DNA - that will make them think twice about committing a crime.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 22, 2009 18:44:34 GMT -6
To me that's downgrading. It's interesting that eventually should be over for murder as if it wasn't that serious. After all they only removed one person or people from this world of 6 plus billion and it didn't affect my life. If to me a prison sentence of - let's say - 25 years is the maximum I can accept with regard to human rights, how is that downgrading murder? It's the most severe punishment in my book for the worst crime. Experts can tell quite well, I guess. And I don't know if I were against LWOP if a loved one of mine was murdered; I don't even know if I still were anti DP. I'm willing to take that risk as long as this risk is reduced by psychological checking for potential future threats, constant control after the murderer was let out and further constant psychologial checks. I'm not comparing murder to mixed up hormons during puberty but I'm comparing the concepts of punishment. All I'm saying is if punishment is not intended to correct somebody it is useless. It can be retaliation then but not punishment. You can control a murderer very well with GPS devices for example. This is not intended as punishment. It means that we trust him because we let him out but our trust is naturally limited due to his previous behaviour and that's why we check him as well as for his own good so that he doesn't get involved with criminal people (again). This is not punishment, it's a condition for a privilege.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 22, 2009 20:04:41 GMT -6
Because you're saying the person murdered is only worth 25 years of another person's life.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 22, 2009 20:07:58 GMT -6
Experts can tell quite well, I guess.
Most antis don't know how they'd feel if it applied to them. Incidents in life are usually different when applied to the self.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 22, 2009 20:12:26 GMT -6
Personally I don't care what you call it. It is irrelevant to me. The fact is they murdered and took the life of another person who had as much right to life as the person that murdered. When a person murdered they forfeit that right. I'm done with this conversation because I'm tired of thug huggers who have to go around and try to make murderers into credible members of society. So take them and change them if you think you can, but when they get out just make sure they live in your neighborhood so you can keep track of them.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 23, 2009 7:26:24 GMT -6
Because you're saying the person murdered is only worth 25 years of another person's life. Dont be silly Stormy, you have a very backward eye for eye approach to the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 23, 2009 8:14:18 GMT -6
Because you're saying the person murdered is only worth 25 years of another person's life. Dont be silly Stormy, you have a very backward eye for eye approach to the matter. Really thank you for pointing that out and you're just another thug hugger but you already knew that.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 23, 2009 8:28:40 GMT -6
Actually Felix, a lot of what storm has wrote is very interesting from a staunch Pro and vice versa for a anti like Nuts. What i have found reading the exchange is that neither has mentioned the category of murder, i .e Murder one, second degree murder and manslaughter. Its just a pro and anti argument that will go around and around without coming to an end because neither can come to an agreement or even agree to disagree. To me its simple, Ive resigned to the fact that i am WOWie, i freaking hate peados with a vengeance and would gladly press the LI buttons or zap the bastards. They are the worst of the worst, so are those who plan and carry out their murder, that is premeditated. If they do kill in a country or a state which has the DP then they must take the responsibility of their actions if caught, they will know they could get executed. This i don't have any arguments with even though i cant quite get there with supporting the DP because of legal *deleted*-ups and the possibility of a mistake, lets face it there has been a few. Its not also the *deleted* up that concerns me but also the length of the time these scummers are kept on death row, in some states murderers do their time and are released. This is unfair and needs clearing up. The USA either has the DP or they don't. To have a two teared system is unjust. Why should one murder get 25 years to 30 and then released when another just over the state line get placed on death row for a couple of decades and when its politically advantageous to have a guy executed they can. That is just as sick as murder depending on your point of view. Storm has made some good points from her point of view as a pro and i have also agreed with that of Nuts. Perhaps if they argued on the categories of murder and the said punishments and legal disparity then perhaps they could agree on a common ground, fall in love and live happy ever after .
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 23, 2009 9:11:54 GMT -6
Dont be silly Stormy, you have a very backward eye for eye approach to the matter. Really thank you for pointing that out and you're just another thug hugger but you already knew that. I have never hugged a thug, but I fully suspect you need to exagerrate my perspective in order to enhance what you obviously and evidentially feel is your otherwise weak arguement for executions.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 23, 2009 9:49:22 GMT -6
Really thank you for pointing that out and you're just another thug hugger but you already knew that. I have never hugged a thug, but I fully suspect you need to exagerrate my perspective in order to enhance what you obviously and evidentially feel is your otherwise weak arguement for executions. Do you not believe that if a murderer seems reformed and no longer a threat they should be released?
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 23, 2009 9:53:50 GMT -6
Personally I don't care what you call it. It is irrelevant to me. The fact is they murdered and took the life of another person who had as much right to life as the person that murdered. When a person murdered they forfeit that right. I'm done with this conversation because I'm tired of thug huggers who have to go around and try to make murderers into credible members of society. So take them and change them if you think you can, but when they get out just make sure they live in your neighborhood so you can keep track of them. Why do you start calling me names now? I understand and respect your point that you believe that death is the only adequate punishment for murder. I don't sit around at home crying because of those poor, poor murderers who are executed. They knew the consequences of their behaviour but still I believe it's not right. You believe it's not right to release them. So what? I thought this whole board was about discussing this issue!? I don't effing hug criminals, all I'm saying is they have rights as well and the rights of the vicitms and their relatives violated by the criminal are no reason to deny the very same rights to the murderer. I don't feel more sympathy for the murderer than for the victim and his/her relatives just because I don't want them executed. Feeling with the relatives of murdered people should mean that the society grants them access to psychological and financial help and not that we kill the murderer. That's my point. You think different on it and I respect that. We simply discussed the issue.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 23, 2009 10:00:18 GMT -6
Actually Felix, a lot of what storm has wrote is very interesting from a staunch Pro and vice versa for a anti like Nuts. What i have found reading the exchange is that neither has mentioned the category of murder, i .e Murder one, second degree murder and manslaughter. Its just a pro and anti argument that will go around and around without coming to an end because neither can come to an agreement or even agree to disagree. The problem is that the definition of murder is different in Germany. In common law tradition 1st degree murder means that you acted premeditated, I think!? Here the definition is the following according to sec. 211 of the German Criminal Code: Section 211 Murder (1) The murderer shall be punished with imprisonment for life. (2) A murderer is, whoever kills a human being out of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual desires, from greed or otherwise base motives, treacherously or cruelly or with means dangerous to the public or in order to make another crime possible or cover it up. Whereas manslaughter is the following: Section 212 Manslaughter (1) Whoever kills a human being without being a murderer, shall be punished for manslaughter with imprisonment for not less than five years. (2) In especially serious cases imprisonment for life shall be imposed.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 13:02:49 GMT -6
The problem is that the definition of murder is different in Germany. In common law tradition 1st degree murder means that you acted premeditated, I think!? Here the definition is the following according to sec. 211 of the German Criminal Code: Section 211 Murder (1) The murderer shall be punished with imprisonment for life. (2) A murderer is, whoever kills a human being out of murderous lust, to satisfy his sexual desires, from greed or otherwise base motives, treacherously or cruelly or with means dangerous to the public or in order to make another crime possible or cover it up. Whereas manslaughter is the following: Section 212 Manslaughter (1) Whoever kills a human being without being a murderer, shall be punished for manslaughter with imprisonment for not less than five years. (2) In especially serious cases imprisonment for life shall be imposed. That is the lamest definition of murder I have ever read. My god, what is wrong with you people?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 23, 2009 14:02:36 GMT -6
Why do you start calling me names now? What name, a thug hugger? If you're willing to let murderers back into society then why should you care. It just amazes me when certain antis say they're for harsh punishment but also say to if murderers are not a threat let them out. Of course they say the murderer has to be reviewed by an expert as if that takes away the crime already committed. It's easy to say that because you probably think that the murderer if released will never affect your life. Of course if they murder again you might be willing to lock them up for life. Now if they murdered one of your loved ones then what would you wish. Anyone wishing to release a murderer to me is a thug hugger.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 23, 2009 14:15:13 GMT -6
That is the lamest definition of murder I have ever read. My god, what is wrong with you people? What's wrong with it? I might add that this understanding of murder was introduced by the Nazis because they believed in different types of criminals. To them there was a typical thief, a typical robber and a typical murderer. I still think it describes the most horrible reasons for and most horrible ways of killing making the crime even worse than manslaughter. Just because it was introduced by the Nazis doesn't mean that it is bad. Have a look at the definitions of various degrees of homicide in Texas. THAT is weird in my eyes. ( lhttp://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.005.00.000019.00.htm#19.03.00)
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 14:33:51 GMT -6
There is the loathsome reference to "base motives." As if that matters. I could go on but that's the one that is most alarming. Basically if you point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger, it's not murder. I might add that this understanding of murder was introduced by the Nazis because they believed in different types of criminals. All the more reason to reject such a definition. Aren't there references in your constitution to the "dignity" of your citizens? How do you comport that to a 5-year sentence for murder? To them there was a typical thief, a typical robber and a typical murderer. I still think it describes the most horrible reasons for and most horrible ways of killing making the crime even worse than manslaughter. Just because it was introduced by the Nazis doesn't mean that it is bad. It's infinitely inferior to California's definition, which is simple. Have a look at the definitions of various degrees of homicide in Texas. THAT is weird in my eyes. A valid criticism. Texans are a very strange people. I regret that their secession wasn't successful.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 23, 2009 14:38:24 GMT -6
What name, a thug hugger? If you're willing to let murderers back into society then why should you care. It just amazes me when certain antis say they're for harsh punishment but also say to if murderers are not a threat let them out. Of course they say the murderer has to be reviewed by an expert as if that takes away the crime already committed. It's easy to say that because you probably think that the murderer if released will never affect your life. Of course if they murder again you might be willing to lock them up for life. Now if they murdered one of your loved ones then what would you wish. Anyone wishing to release a murderer to me is a thug hugger. I just find it strange that I try to discuss punishment on a board which is intended to host those debates and you start start calling Felix and me names (that's what it is, Stormy) although we've had a civilized debate before. You cannot accept and respect that others have different opinions as it seems. You don't have to like it but one can demand that opinions which are not intended to harm others are respected.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 23, 2009 14:43:36 GMT -6
What name, a thug hugger? If you're willing to let murderers back into society then why should you care. It just amazes me when certain antis say they're for harsh punishment but also say to if murderers are not a threat let them out. Of course they say the murderer has to be reviewed by an expert as if that takes away the crime already committed. It's easy to say that because you probably think that the murderer if released will never affect your life. Of course if they murder again you might be willing to lock them up for life. Now if they murdered one of your loved ones then what would you wish. Anyone wishing to release a murderer to me is a thug hugger. I just find it strange that I try to discuss punishment on a board which is intended to host those debates and you start start calling Felix and me names (that's what it is, Stormy) although we've had a civilized debate before. You cannot accept and respect that others have different opinions as it seems. You don't have to like it but one can demand that opinions which are not intended to harm others are respected. Don't worry about Felix, he and I have been exchanging names for a long time. He can handle it. I know I do from him. As far as you, it's just that I'm tired of people willing to let murderers back on the street because they seem changed. It's one thing to question whether or not we should be executing murderers; it's another to want to let them out someday. I'm just tired of it.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 23, 2009 14:59:50 GMT -6
There is the loathsome reference to "base motives." As if that matters. I could go on but that's the one that is most alarming. Basically if you point a gun at someone's head and pull the trigger, it's not murder. Everybody who kills has motives. So you might murder someone in the given scenario. It's pretty easy to fulfil one of the criteria for murder. Plus it's a concept of our criminal code that we punish the intention behind a deed. You don't only punish the result as well otherwhise you wouldn't punish the attempt of a crime. Ya, in our first article. It would take too long to describe what it refers to and what it protects but don't forget it's the minimum sentence for manslaughter. Usually they will do a lot more time. And just because it was introduced by the Nazis doesn't mean it's full of Nazi ideology. The Nazis have introduced laws about animal rights as well which were never changed. Should we change them just because it was introduced by the Nazi regime? What's the definition then?
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 23, 2009 15:11:43 GMT -6
Don't worry about Felix, he and I have been exchanging names for a long time. He can handle it. I know I do from him. As far as you, it's just that I'm tired of people willing to let murderers back on the street because they seem changed. It's one thing to question whether or not we should be executing murderers; it's another to want to let them out someday. I'm just tired of it. OK, let's just end the debate at this point and never talk about it again...
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 23, 2009 15:12:54 GMT -6
Don't worry about Felix, he and I have been exchanging names for a long time. He can handle it. I know I do from him. As far as you, it's just that I'm tired of people willing to let murderers back on the street because they seem changed. It's one thing to question whether or not we should be executing murderers; it's another to want to let them out someday. I'm just tired of it. OK, let's just end the debate at this point and never talk about it again... Fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 15:27:48 GMT -6
Everybody who kills has motives. Which is why motives aren't relevant to murder. So you might murder someone in the given scenario. It's pretty easy to fulfil one of the criteria for murder. Plus it's a concept of our criminal code that we punish the intention behind a deed. That's immoral. You don't only punish the result as well otherwhise you wouldn't punish the attempt of a crime. No, you would also punish attempted crimes, notwithstanding intentions, as a violation of law. It is impossible to actually punish a "motive." So if you have a good motive for murder, it's OK? Ya, in our first article. It would take too long to describe what it refers to and what it protects You mean it would take too long for a German to describe it, since you really don't believe it. but don't forget it's the minimum sentence for manslaughter. Usually they will do a lot more time. Your manslaughter is murder, to us. So how much is "a lot more time?" And just because it was introduced by the Nazis doesn't mean it's full of Nazi ideology. The Nazis have introduced laws about animal rights as well which were never changed. Should we change them just because it was introduced by the Nazi regime? They warrant examination, yes. Your culture is supposed to be Nazi-free. The Nazis may have been arbitrary about their punishments but at least they believed in punishment. Present-day Germans apparently don't. What's the definition then? The definition of murder here is simply killing someone knowing that it's illegal and/or wrong (except in the case of abortion -- that kind of killing is OK).
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 24, 2009 17:55:42 GMT -6
Which is why motives aren't relevant to murder. A mercy killing isn't murder in my eyes. A killing upon request isn't murder in my eyes either. Both deeds violate the law but they are very different to someone killing to rape the corpse or some perverted shyt. Motives can be immoral so why not punish them when they lead to a certain result? That something violates the law doesn't justify punishing it. A law is not an explanation for itself since there can be injust laws. Just because the majority approved of it didn't make it right for example to punish relationships between jews and so called arians. It can make it less serious a crime in cases of mercy killing for example. Let me ask you one question: You want to kill someone because you want to take his money. You do so and afterwards it is found that your behaviour was justified for any reason which is not important for this example but you didn't act with the knowledge of the justifying factor; you killed because you wanted the money. Is this worth punishing? In my eyes yes. The result is justified the intention behind the deed is not. Either you're trying to insult me here or I don't understand what you really mean. In dubio I will believe the latter and ask you to explain this, please. Up to 15 years. I cannot tell what the average sentence is though since sentencing and all is not part of the university stage of the law studies over here but part of the practical phase after the first state exam. There's nothing typical National-Socialistic in the murder sec. They did believe in certain types of criminals but that isn't in contrast to a modern understanding of a just and democratic country, hence enabling the society to keep it. What you say about the Nazis and punishment is the Autobahn-argument. It means that somebody says "Well, the Nazis weren't bad in everything. They built Autobahns and...". This is very dangerous because most people using this Autobahn-argument have an agenda I don't approve of. Since I've heard of your tragic family history I know that you don't have that agenda. Still I believe the argument is misleading. The Nazis didn't believe in punishment as a form of justice, they believed in punishment to control people and to appease the masses which were in uproar after a crime. There was no justice in what the Nazis did because if you deny justice to some there can't be any justice at all. And don't they make any difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, capital murder, manslaughter etc.?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 25, 2009 9:48:18 GMT -6
A mercy killing isn't murder in my eyes. Under California law, it's murder, as it should be. Apparently Germans are OK with murder as long as the murderer has a good excuse. A killing upon request isn't murder in my eyes either. It's murder. Both deeds violate the law but they are very different to someone killing to rape the corpse or some perverted shyt. No they're not. Who cares why someone is a murderer? The act is evil, and from the evil of the act so is the intent and the actor him/herself. Motives can be immoral so why not punish them when they lead to a certain result? There's no such thing as an immoral motive. Only acts are immoral. We all have motives for murder. Only the force of law restrains us from acting on those motives. That something violates the law doesn't justify punishing it. What kind of nonsense is that? Laws are written for the specific purpose of punishing those who violate the laws. That's the whole point of law, to punish undesirable behavior. A law is not an explanation for itself since there can be injust laws. In a democracy there is no such thing as an unjust law. Just because the majority approved of it didn't make it right for example to punish relationships between jews and so called arians. Sorry, but in a democracy that is just. Look up the definition of just and justice.A society can be unjust toward a specific social minority, but the laws of that society cannot be unjust. If to punish relationships between ethnic groups x and y are what the people of a society truly want, laws enforcing that desire are, by definition, just. It can make it less serious a crime in cases of mercy killing for example. So-called "mercy" killings are no less heinous than killings for insurance money, no less heinous than sex slayings, no less heinous than the murder of children. Whether or not a murder victim allegedly wanted to die doesn't ameliorate the malice exhibited by the murderer. A society that goes soft on the murder of old people is making a value judgment about the lives of old people. Apparently you agree with that judgment. I do not. Let me ask you one question: You want to kill someone because you want to take his money. You do so and afterwards it is found that your behaviour was justified for any reason which is not important for this example but you didn't act with the knowledge of the justifying factor; you killed because you wanted the money. Is this worth punishing? In my eyes yes. The result is justified the intention behind the deed is not. Right, so why are you soft on the murder of the elderly? Either you're trying to insult me here or I don't understand what you really mean. My intention wasn't to insult but to distinguish the poor understanding of German law, by Germans, against the clear understanding of law, by Americans. The fact is you can't explain the legal philosophy behind something as important as the German murder statute. What does that say about Germans? However the laws of other states are written, the murder law of California is quite explicit: don't do it under any circumstances. What you say about the Nazis and punishment is the Autobahn-argument. It means that somebody says "Well, the Nazis weren't bad in everything. They built Autobahns and...". This is very dangerous because most people using this Autobahn-argument have an agenda I don't approve of. Like what? It's a good argument. Democracy isn't for everyone. Hitler knew that. The Nazi party knew that, and so did most Germans. Nazism was the right political philosophy at the right time. It was only the Final Solution that caused it to fail. Since I've heard of your tragic family history I know that you don't have that agenda. The virulent xenophobia of the Third Reich was more German than Nazi. You all knew about it and had a hand in it. Teutonic hubris brought you down in 1945, not Nazism. And it wasn't the first time, either. Still I believe the argument is misleading. The Nazis didn't believe in punishment as a form of justice, they believed in punishment to control people and to appease the masses which were in uproar after a crime. I don't have a problem with the Nazis' use of capital punishment. That your criminal justice system had faults doesn't invalidate the utility and rectitude of the death penalty. If you truly want to stop murder, you execute murderers. Period. You can use the same methods -- hanging, the guillotine, death by machine gun -- that the Nazis used, for all I care. It's the same thing -- capital punishment. There was no justice in what the Nazis did because if you deny justice to some there can't be any justice at all. Maybe. I believe you still have separate laws regarding immigrants, do you not? don't they make any difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder, capital murder, manslaughter etc.? I'm glad you asked that question. The California penal code distinguishes between provoked and unprovoked homicide (manslaughter vs. murder). It mentions a murder called "second-degree" but does not define it -- it's only there for the purpose of plea bargaining, which I oppose on moral grounds.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 25, 2009 11:50:26 GMT -6
Under California law, it's murder, as it should be. You can call it murder because it is premeditated which is the definition of murder in the common law world. Here it is not murder as long as it is a real mercy killing, it's "Totschlag", unluckily translated in the Englisch version I found of our Criminal Code as manslaughter. In my eyes it's not immoral to punish it less severe than murder according to the German definition of it. A person killing in a situation of moral conflict is not neccessarily an enemy to our society, a person killing out of greed or sexual desires is. That's pretty simple and obvious in my eyes. Actually yes, because even if you act in self defense you can fulfil all the criteria of manslaughter here; you're only justified in that case. You're only thinking of the result which leads me to the question whether you want the DP for killings because of negligence as well? A mistake doesn't mean your hostile to our system and its laws meaning that you need not be punished except you have acted recklessly by knowingly creating a danger to people without the intent to harm people though. I don't see good reasons for harsh punishment here either except for the fact that we don't want people to take actions what's rather supposed to be a suicide. We just don't want people to put their hands on the lives of others, that's why we punish them, still we agree that it's a moral conflict they were in and that they acted on behalf of the victim. Homicide upon request is only punished because we fear that if we didn't punish it a mentality of due diligence concerning the economic value of life could come up; it's simply prevention. The deed itself might not be evil after all. The act can only be understood by looking at the motive. They form a unity. What you really mean is the result, otherwhise acting upon request of another wouldn't be evil since no rights of others are violated by it. Of course there are immoral motives. If I only do treat someone well because I hope it benefits me that's immoral as well. It simply isn't illegal. So you would murder if it wasn't punished? And why is there murder even though there are laws setting a punishment for it? The choice of murdering somebody or not is not made by looking at the laws, it's made by looking at your personal values. If you don't have any, you do it no matter what the law says. Where does your Constitution punish anything? Where does private law punish anything? Most laws simply give you rights, that's all. Only penal codes set a punishment. A law only designed to oppress people cannot serve justice, they are inherently unjust, that's the Radbrucian formula: "In sum, Radbruch's formula argues that where statutory law is incompatible with the requirements of justice "to an intolerable degree", or where statutory law was obviously designed in a way that deliberately negates "the equality that is the core of all justice", statutory law must be disregarded by a judge in favour of the justice principle". The Nuremberg laws dealing with questions of race were only made to discriminate jews, sinthi and others. These acts don't deserve the label law since they didn't serve justice. Where is the malice when the victim wants it??? There is no malice since laws should protect our rights. If I waive a right, there can't be malice - "volenti non fit iniuria". We only punish homicide upon request because we fear a society that judges the value of human life by it's economic balance sheet. You're distracting from the fact that your view is not consistent. Applying your understanding of murder to the example results in no punishment because the act was justified. Only the intention makes it immoral and worthwhile punishing. Still you agree with punishing the killer. That doesn't fit together. I feel relief now that you do care about my "poor" understanding of my laws. FYI, I study law - G E R M A N law! I do know something about it, more than you do. I've explained the legal philosophy behind the murder statute; that you don't agree with it, is a different thing. And it's not very smart to judge me without knowing me and applying this judgement to all people in Germany. Our understanding of law is pretty clear. Strangely we export our laws to other countries without force. Japan for example took our civil law as an example as well as South Korea. China is reforming it's penal code with the example of the German criminal code. Turkey took our code about criminal trials procedures as an example... It can't be that bad after all. Ask those brave people who were tortured by the GeStaPo, killed in concentration camps for speaking out their mind. Until recently I thought you were simply strange and had some issues, now I just want to puke in your face. I don't care if I get suspended for this. You try to seperate two things which cannot be seperated, Nazism and this "Teutonic hybris", like you cannot seperate Nazism and the "final solution". It all comes down to the idea of Social Darwinism with a master race ruling over the world, resulting in the death of millions. That's what Nazism is about, that's why it needs to be fought. This should provoke uproar in the Pro DP lobby. The people on this board believe in the DP for reasons I can understand because to me retaliation can be a form of justice. I don't agree with it but I understand and respect their point. You want the DP for no other reason than simply having it. If you do not see a single spark of justice behind this, you don't understand how societies work and have never thought about the nature of human beings. No, we don't have seperate laws for immigrants. Everyone not having a German citizenship hasn't got the same rights as Germans when it comes to demonstration-rights for example (EU foreigners are exempt from this), but basically you have the same rights and the jurisdiction of the Ferderal Constitutional Court is in favour of mostly equal rights for immigrants by employing analogies in their favour with our 2nd article.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 25, 2009 14:01:09 GMT -6
You can call it murder because it is premeditated which is the definition of murder in the common law world. Here it is not murder as long as it is a real mercy killing, it's "Totschlag", unluckily translated in the Englisch version I found of our Criminal Code as manslaughter. In my eyes it's not immoral to punish it less severe than murder according to the German definition of it. A person killing in a situation of moral conflict is not neccessarily an enemy to our society, a person killing out of greed or sexual desires is. That's pretty simple and obvious in my eyes. That's Geschwätz, to put it mildly. Someone who premeditates a killing and does it is not morally conflicted. S/he has resolved the conflict in favor of murder out of pure self-interest, as all murderers do. If the "mercy" killer isn't a threat to society, neither is a serial or contract killer. I can't help think that the way Germans think about old people is a little bit like they thought, or perhaps still think, of Jews and Austrian Catholics. It's pretty easy to excuse killing if such killing makes you feel better. You're only thinking of the result which leads me to the question whether you want the DP for killings because of negligence as well? Where the negligence is such that death is a likely outcome, yes. Example: vehicular manslaughter combined with wreckless and/or drunken driving. A mistake doesn't mean your hostile to our system and its laws meaning that you need not be punished except you have acted recklessly by knowingly creating a danger to people without the intent to harm people though. Your intent to harm can be implicitly as well as explicitly implied. Whether or not you mean harm doesn't matter. If your behavior is such that unintentional harm is likely, your intent is nevertheless malicious. I don't see good reasons for harsh punishment here either except for the fact that we don't want people to take actions what's rather supposed to be a suicide. Murder warrants the harshest punishment possible. That includes murder of people who want to die. Murder is murder, and to lessen punishment for some acts of murder is to say those victims aren't worth as much to society as other victims of murder. We just don't want people to put their hands on the lives of others, that's why we punish them, still we agree that it's a moral conflict they were in and that they acted on behalf of the victim. That is pure sheisse. "Mercy killers" are only merciful to themselves. They want their victims dead out of self-interest, not altruism. The morally conflicted walk away. They do not murder. Homicide upon request is only punished because we fear that if we didn't punish it a mentality of due diligence concerning the economic value of life could come up That seems clear. You would rather see old people dead. The deed itself might not be evil after all. It's an evil act, and those who commit it are evil by association. It is not the good in people that blows away someone in cold blood just because that person wants to die. The act can only be understood by looking at the motive. They form a unity. No, they don't. Motive is irrelevant in a deliberate, unprovoked, premeditated homicide. I ask again -- what is so distasteful about the lives of the suicidal that you want their murderers spared harsh punishment? And why are good excuses for murder acceptable, even to Germans? You murdered Jews and Catholics because you thought they were inferior. Apparently you believe in treating old people the same way. Have you learned nothing from your past? Of course there are immoral motives. There aren't. If I tell a lie to spare someone's feelings, or to swindle someone out of his money, it's still a lie. If lying is morally wrong, it doesn't matter why someone lies. If murder is morally wrong, the motivation behind a murder doesn't mitigate against the wrong committed. Premeditating the killing of someone, and then doing it, is either wrong or it isn't. And a murder doesn't become manslaughter simply because you feel bad about punishing the murderer. Going soft on a murderer is moral weakness, not strength. So you would murder if it wasn't punished? Of course I would, starting with my grandfather's killer (since my mother is already dead). Or maybe the next guy that tries to push me off the freeway. What firearm would you recommend? I'm thinking 30.06 shotgun. And why is there murder even though there are laws setting a punishment for it? Weak law enforcement, and because murder isn't considered a serious crime here. The choice of murdering somebody or not is not made by looking at the laws, it's made by looking at your personal values. Personal values are fungible and easily overcome. If you don't have any, you do it no matter what the law says. Every murderer has personal values. There are those he refuses to kill, and those he'd kill in a heartbeat. That is certainly true for you, as well. Under the right set of circumstances, you would commit an act of murder, too. I can prove to you that anyone would. The only difference between someone who has murdered and someone who hasn't murdered is moral restraint, as buttressed by laws supporting such restraint and enforcement of those laws. There is no built-in, amoral mechanism in the human brain that prohibits any one of us from killing someone. We're all capable of it, which is why punishment is so important. Where does your Constitution punish anything? Where does private law punish anything? Most laws simply give you rights, that's all. Only penal codes set a punishment. What's your point. A law only designed to oppress people cannot serve justice, they are inherently unjust, that's the Radbrucian formula: "In sum, Radbruch's formula argues that where statutory law is incompatible with the requirements of justice "to an intolerable degree", or where statutory law was obviously designed in a way that deliberately negates "the equality that is the core of all justice", statutory law must be disregarded by a judge in favour of the justice principle". Yeah, I saw that movie too. You keep forgetting that Judgment at Nuremberg was a work of fiction. It's a good film, but that's all it is. (Apparently you forgot how that movie ended, as well.) Notwithstanding Radbruch's lofty principles of "justice," most people, and I would bet most Germans, don't buy it. He (and you, if you support him) is basically saying if a judge doesn't like a law because he thinks it's unfair, he can simply ignore it and substitute his own personal legal opinion for that of the people. That's pretty much what Hitler did, isn't it? What makes Radbruch's "justice" any different than Hitler's? Justice is whatever the majority of people in a culture say it is. Justice is not some unattainable, unreachable goal to which only people who've been to law school aspire, nor is it a holy relic worthy of faith and worship. Justice is a pedestrian enterprise, like street maintenance and waste water treatment. Defining and enforcing the law is part of that pedestrian enterprise. Radbruch The Nuremberg laws dealing with questions of race were only made to discriminate jews, sinthi and others. These acts don't deserve the label law since they didn't serve justice. Where is the malice when the victim wants it? The malice is in knowing the deliberate and unprovoked killing of a fellow human being is wrong, under any circumstances, and in performing the killing anyway. THAT is malice. Since when do people who want to die decide laws against murder? What are you saying to such people, when you want their murderers spared harsh punishment? There is no malice since laws should protect our rights. If I waive a right, there can't be malice - "volenti non fit iniuria". But you don't have the right to commit suicide, legal or otherwise. Nor do you have the right to induce others to commit murder, even if the prospective victim is you. Since you don't have the right to commit suicide in the first place, you have nothing to waive. We only punish homicide upon request because we fear a society that judges the value of human life by it's economic balance sheet. Right, but you're already making those value judgments. You have nothing to fear because you're already there -- having declared those who want to die as less worthy of life than those who don't want to die. You made that declaration by punishing one act of murder less severely than another. You're distracting from the fact that your view is not consistent. Applying your understanding of murder to the example results in no punishment because the act was justified. If you're talking about "mercy" killing, my understanding of murder law is consistent. I don't see premeditated, unprovoked killing with an excuse to be different than killing without one. Neither does California law. Only the intention makes it immoral and worthwhile punishing. And yet you see the intention of killing someone who wants to die to be moral and justified. I don't and since you want me to think of you as a nice German, I don't understand why you do. FYI, I study law - G E R M A N law! I do know something about it, more than you do. I've explained the legal philosophy behind the murder statute; that you don't agree with it, is a different thing. And it's not very smart to judge me without knowing me and applying this judgement to all people in Germany. Our understanding of law is pretty clear. Strangely we export our laws to other countries without force. I'm assuming most people in Germany support your German law against murder, and support your country's spurious distinction between premeditated killings that are motivated by "good" motives and those that aren't. I don't have to know you or have knowledge of what you do for a living, Honeyroastedpeanut, to deduce from your murder statute how Germans feel about acts of murder. It's clear some murders bother you and some don't. I would like to say Americans have an entirely different attitude, but they don't. We may punish our murderers more harshly, including those who kill people perceived as wanting to die, but we still allow most of them to leave prison. Japan for example took our civil law as an example as well as South Korea. We're talking about criminal law, not civil law. China is reforming it's penal code with the example of the German criminal code. Right. The Chinese are poised to jettison the death penalty, thanks to the concerted, benign efforts of Germany. Please let me know when that glorious day comes. Turkey took our code about criminal trials procedures as an example... It can't be that bad after all. Our discussion has been about your murder statute. Your criminal procedures may be laudable, but your murder statute still sucks. Ask those brave people who were tortured by the GeStaPo, killed in concentration camps for speaking out their mind. One of them was my grandfather. Your point? You were the one defending retention of German legal traditions that existed in the Third Reich. You said they weren't all bad. Fair enough. I am simply questioning your murder statute in light of Germany's concerns for the "dignity" of its people, as expressed in your constitution. My point -- the "dignity" of the suicidal doesn't count for much. When they're murdered, you call it manslaughter, not murder. Until recently I thought you were simply strange and had some issues That is a widely held view, one which doesn't bother me in the least. now I just want to puke in your face. Make sure you eat schnitzel and spaetzle first. I grew up on that stuff. I love it. I don't care if I get suspended for this. You won't. My mother would have hated you. I don't. You try to seperate two things which cannot be seperated, Nazism and this "Teutonic hybris", like you cannot seperate Nazism and the "final solution". It all comes down to the idea of Social Darwinism with a master race ruling over the world, resulting in the death of millions. That's what Nazism is about, that's why it needs to be fought. We have Nazis here, too, HRP. There's more to it than a simple desire for global hegemony, which I don't think people take seriously anyway. If Nazism appeals to people, it's because no other political philosophy emphasizes social order and national identity. In dark times, that appeal is hard to resist. In dark times people don't want democracy. They want security. This should provoke uproar in the Pro DP lobby. It does, with the moral weaklings and hypocrites. The people on this board believe in the DP for reasons I can understand because to me retaliation can be a form of justice. I don't agree with it but I understand and respect their point. I understand it but I don't respect it. They want the DP apply to their favorite murderers, to avenge their favorite victims. They are only conditionally opposed to murder. You want the DP for no other reason than simply having it. That would be a mistaken impression. If anything, my detractors want the death penalty to exist even if no one is ever executed in the future. That would be wanting the DP for no other reason than to have it. I want the death penalty expanded to include all murderers because they all deserve it. Murderers all have one thing in common, which is why I think of them as a group. I can't think of them as individuals because there is nothing particularly important that distinguishes one from the other. If you do not see a single spark of justice behind this, you don't understand how societies work and have never thought about the nature of human beings. I would say I do more than you. I believe in an unabridged and unabridgable right not to be murdered. I am not picking and choosing which murder victims' murderers should be punished harshly and which ones should be punished with more leniency. Why? Because no one deserves to be murdered. No one. Period. That includes saints and sinners, people who ask to die and pedophiles who don't.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 26, 2009 13:08:53 GMT -6
That's Geschwätz, to put it mildly. Someone who premeditates a killing and does it is not morally conflicted. S/he has resolved the conflict in favor of murder out of pure self-interest, as all murderers do. If the "mercy" killer isn't a threat to society, neither is a serial or contract killer. I can't help think that the way Germans think about old people is a little bit like they thought, or perhaps still think, of Jews and Austrian Catholics. It's pretty easy to excuse killing if such killing makes you feel better. To stay with the German words: That's Mumpitz! (know that one? I love it.) A moral conflict includes that you might make the wrong decision because of it. If there is only self interest behind your choice of killing than this is not a moral conflict. Those "base motives" mentioned in our sec. 211 mean that you act out of a degree of self-interest that is on the lowest level of social and ethical thinking. Example: If you kill the killer of a relative of yours this is not a base motive because the revenge is to some extent understandable. It's still manslaughter though except you fulfil other murder criteria like acting treacherously for example. A mercy killing is not limited to old people, by the way and we have a big debate about homicide upon request here, whether it should remain illegal under all circumstances or should be allowed for terminally ill people like in the Netherlands. I'm in favour of keeping it as it is and I believe the majority of Germans think alike since bad reports about the organization "dignitas" in Switzerland came up. Yes, there's still anti semitism here. But I don't think that our problem with it is bigger than that of other countries. You cannot imagine how often the Holocaust is the subject in history classes during school. The kids here get every possibility to understand what the Holocaust meant, how brutal it was. Many schools do field trips to former concentration camps in Germany and Poland. Still there are some who probably don't want to understand it but that's the general problem with anti semitism: it just won't disappear. I must admit that I don't get what you said about Austrian Catholics. The Catholic church didn't do much against the Nazi regime, some priests even supported them. So I don't see how there was a systematic prosecution of Austrian Catholics who probably welcomed the "Führer" when he arrived there in 1938. Of course I disagree here. To me that's out of proportion but we won't come to a point regarding that. For many, many people their guilt will be enough of a punishment. If you see the penal codes in countries as rules which have to be followed you have to make a difference between the severity of non-compliance because you want people to accept the rules. So it must make a difference whether the non-compliance was unintentional and thus the result was unintentional as well, whether the non-compliance was intentional the result wasn't and whether both are intentional. If you see a crime as a statement against the order of the respective country, there are huge differences when it comes to question whether the result was intended or not. Punishment is not handed down to appease the victim or its family and friends but to state that the rule which was violated is nevertheless valid. My understanding of punishment is different, see above. A punishment doesn't (only) express the value of the victim, it expresses the amount of understanding and disdain for the act under consideration of all circumstances. And, as I said with homicide upon request in mind, "volenti non fit iniuria". That's an old Roman law tradition. Why should you execute somebody who has killed uopon frank and understandable request? There is no selfishness, no malice, nothing. If you think of people in a society with a bubble around them consisting of all their rights you come to the conclusion that you punish people who penetrate that bubble. But if someone let's his right to live out of it and this wasn't done because of insanity, you cannot penetrate it by killing him. Punishment requires and unwanted intereference with the rights of others, don't you think? That's why homosexuality isn't punished anymore in most countries; no interference with the rights of others. You mix up real mercy killings with those killings which are justified by the killer with prentended mercy. The sentence "I couldn't see him/her suffer anymore" must of course be translated with "I killed because I didn't want to see that anymore and wanted to move on". But there can be realy mercy killings. Most of them are not true in my eyes either. The morally conflicted can walk away. But this is only one of the two options they have. Killing doesn't exclude a moral conflict it is simply one of the two possible results of it. No, my argument stated the exact opposite. I don't want a situation to occur in which society believes it is better for itself if the old person dies because the extensive care costs too much. You are the one talking about cancelling all welfare programs, not raising taxes etc. in other threads because you don't believe we're responsible for our next. That is judging a life by its costs. That's not true. There are many people who see their loved ones die in agonizing pain. If they killed them upon the patients request they wouldn't do it in cold blood but to fulfil the loved one a wish. It's the absolute opposite of acting in cold blood. Wait a minute. You see a difference between provoked and unprovoked homicide. There you have your motives. A provoked homicide means that you act out of revenge. Nothing is distasteful about the lives of suicidals. It's just that suicide isn't illegal, assistance to suicide is not illegal as well. If you told me you wanted to die I could even encourage you that it is the right thing to do. I could hand you a rope and a chair. I'm just not allowed to kick you from the chair in the given case. By assisting you I simply confirm your free choice to kill yourself. To me it's morally totally wrong to assist a healthy person in his/her suicide but I can imagine situations in which I might be able to help, I don't know for sure of course. You have a right to decide over your own life, take unreasonable risks or kill yourself. It's only that you're not allowed to actively kill somebody. If someone really wants to die he must make it himself so that we all know he was sure about it. I didn't murder Jews and Catholics but I have learned something from the German past: everyone has the right to decide over his/her life freely. If someone doesn't want to live anymore, who am I to judge that? Everyone has a right to live but if someone willingly waives that, that's an individual decision I don't want to interfere with as long as the decision is made while being sane which excludes depressions for example. Lying is not per se morally wrong, that's the point where we differ. When someone who is severly ill and because of that not looking good asks me how he/she looks, I will answer "pretty!" with the best conscience. The motivation was good, so the act was not really bad. What you're saying about murder and manslaughter might be true for the American understanding of it, where I live the understanding is different. You cannot simply argue with your laws because they don't apply here. You have to argue with the reasons for the laws. I understand the reasons for your laws but I'm in favour of our rules because it enables the courts to distinguish between different levels of wrong. No base motive, so it would "only" be "Totschlag" here. You have to consider the sound as well. In the German forces they always say: "War is hell but the sound is awesome.". So you might consider taking something bigger. You really think that you can prevent all murders to happen by strong law enforcement or other means? You never will. Yap, that's why some people murder. Of course we're all capable of it but I believe as well that we would all do it anyway if the circumstances are unlucky. You said laws are only created to set rules and connect a punishment to disobedience. They are not otherwhise there wouldn't be private law, administrative law etc. There you don't find punishment. Only criminal law sets punishments. I've never seen that movie, that's for sure. I know the Radbruch formula from my studies. Wrong. It's not about being unfair, it's about arbitrariness. He says a law only made to discriminate people is not valid and must be replaced with common thoughts about justice. This is way beyond simply being "unfair". Radbruch believed in a volonte general which is of higher value than what a dictator or even a parliament says. To say everything passed by a democratically elected parliament is justice is a slap in the face of those who suffer from this "justice". You believe in legal positvism, I don't with the barbarity of the Nazi regime in mind. No, justice has a nature. It can change a lot but the core of it stays. This core is that you're not allowed to treat people unequally without a good reason which doesn't lead this core-principle ad absurdum. That's a circular argument: "it's wrong to kill in this situation because you know it's wrong and do it anyway." The people who want to die don't decide laws against murder - I just hope our parliament is not full of suicidal people right in the middle of the financial crisis - but they have their rights which they can waive. We waive rights everyday without noticing it anymore. Some of those waives have become laws over the time, some not. After all it's pretty easy: Everythings that's yours can generally be given away. If we still punish although a right was given away voluntarily we only do that because we fear an unpleasant impact on society. Here you have the right to commit suicide. It's just that police and paramedics are still forced to intervene when they get to know the suicide attempt. A suicide is perfectly legal. Of course our Federal Constitutional Courts states that the individual has no right to dispose his life; the freedoms granted by the constitution find their limits there. In the end this is hot air since suicide isn't illegal. It's the same with lying in court. If you're accused of a crime you lie as much as you want, you don't face punishment for that. It's not a written right, but since there's no punishment connected to it, what is it then? No. I've explained my understanding of punishment in one of the answers above in this reply. Then why do you see a reason for punishment in the example I've given. Only the intention was bad, the result was justified. This is not consistent, sorry. I'm not a nice German, I'm a nice Rheinländer - biiiig difference, just trust me on that one. Did you know that between black and white there's still grey? We don't say those reasons are good, we only say those reasons are remotely understandable. No, some are murder, some are "Totschlag". Both bother us, but one is even worse than the other. Don't worry, there will be "change you can believe in", I've heard somewhere, sometime and somehow... You said that the Germans don't understand law. That's why I responded by giving examples of countries taking our laws as role models for reforms. But don't worry, Germans take legal transplants as well, also from the US - for example in stock market law. The criminal code isn't only about the severity of punishment. It's about giving the right definitions to fit the maximum of unpleasant behaviour while still leaving individual freedoms. If they try to take this, I'm actually very happy. The sentencing is always even more subject to cultural differences than the offences contained in the code. See 2nd answer above. You said "Nazism was the right political philosophy at the right time". How can you say that when relatives of yours were murdered because of the very same "politcal philosophy" (as if it deserved the label "philosophy"; philosophy stands for contemplated, noble thoughts and not barbarianism). Yes, Germany was on the brink of a civil war during the Weimar times and yes, it needed a stronger system than the flawed Weimar model of democracy. Still it wasn't justified to torture, prosecute and murder millions of people, starting the bloodiest war in history of mankind and setting Germany intellectually back to the stone age because all real artists had to escape or were murdered. How can you say that, just how? I said, just because they were passed by the Nazis they needn't be full of disgusting Nazi ideology. Our whole hunting law is based on what these feces have passed because they believed in animal rights. Just because they didn't believe in human rights at the same time doesn't make the animal rights bad, or does it? German basic rights only protect you from direct and intended infringements by the state. Only their core sets a guarantee which is to be respected in other situations. Where is the direct and intended infringement for the victim if the killer is not sentenced to life? Exactly, nowhere. That's why victims don't have a right to be avenged. You might want to think about it, on the other hand. I had a soup, some liver sausage, a ground pork sausage, some bread. You're lucky, we had a German cuisine day this evening. Because I hate Nazism and admittedly freak out when people try to justify it? I'd like to hear that explanation. This social order requires so called "sub humans" to work. If one tries to escape dark times by chosing National Socialism he's going out of the frying pan into the fire. It's only appealing to those who don't value human life and hope to profit from it on the heaviest possible expense of others. If you want to make friends, that's the spirit... There are die-hard Pros on this board like Agaveman and I think Matt as well. I don't share their view but they are not only conditionally opposed to murder. You're assumption is always the following: the punishment reflects the victim. Wrong!!! The punishment reflects the deed which includes more than the "just" the victim. [quote[That would be a mistaken impression. If anything, my detractors want the death penalty to exist even if no one is ever executed in the future. That would be wanting the DP for no other reason than to have it. I want the death penalty expanded to include all murderers because they all deserve it. Murderers all have one thing in common, which is why I think of them as a group. I can't think of them as individuals because there is nothing particularly important that distinguishes one from the other.[/quote] That's retaliation, as form of justice. Nothing really wrong with that. But you made it sound earlier that you don't believe in justice. Actually, believing in legal positivism and justice doesn't fit together at all. I admit that my last statement is controversial. Noone deserves to be killed against their will, that's what I would say. And with distinguishing between murder and Totschlag I don't want and I don't do state that one vicitm deserved to be killed to some extent - never! I just want a punishment fitting the crime and that's why I want to have a look at all circumstances, including the motivation. That took me hours now...
|
|