oh and will, the guy lunged at the college guy.
when someone lunges at you, that pretty much counts for them attacking you, in which defending yourself would be the wisest thing to do.

nice to have you on my side

Are you kidding? If a Victim were to react like this, they would be labeled a criminal themselves. It would be a never-ending cycle.

Too easy to take advantage of. Though I do like the idea.. I would feel pretty safe if I had absolute control within my own house. Hmm......... It would be best just to kill people who become an overall drain to society willingly. Though, if that were to happen we would need someone to be a judge, and I don't like that idea as nobody is perfect or near enough to to it to be that sort of judge.

I don't disagree with you - I just don't think you can make a 100% certain judgement in this particular case because we don't know all the facts and never will. We don't know what situation led to the burglar lunging, for example. In most cases if someone lunges at you, you should defend yourself and if you happen to kill that person then it's just too bad. If you goad them into attacking it's somewhat different. I don't know where the law stands on apprehending burglars though - say you corner the guy with your katana and call the police; If he tries to climb out of the window next to him, are you within your rights (or is it morally justifiable) to attack him with the sword?

If there's no punishment for running, then what have you got to lose? Try to run away, and if that fails, at least you tried.

I maintain if you feel the need to protect your stuff with force, move somewhere with a Castle Doctrine
if you're really worried about being put away for excessive force. Or move to one of those crazy towns that forces you to buy a gun to live there.

My point was that there should be a law that allowed people to do this.
It's easy to take advantage of, just like it's easy to kill someone. It's possible, but not going to happen often. Especially if you mix it with extreme state punishment for these crimes. If a person is caught faking being a victim to get an excuse to torture someone, the state will torture him and slowly kill him. Is it immoral? Sure. But it will definitely reduce crime significantly. There will be some mistakes done by the system, as there always are... but it'll be worth it.

I feel the need to protect my stuff, but I can't handle a community of redneck Republicans. Halp? I really shouldn't need to change my life completely to feel safe in my own home, should I?

And his point is that there shouldn't be one. And no, nothing about this is 'should', that is just as much emotion as it is with many of people's sentiments. So you should refrain from using such statements, but many people before us, and even now strive for just and humane treatment of people, just by the reason that they are 'people'. So it seems that your ideal is not the majority, and thats all it matters.

Plus is there a need to get emotional over this? Is there a source or proof that the kid got charged of excessive force? Or is it just the suggestion of the burglar's relatives?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture
Read paragraph 5 from the top.

I think that goes for everyone else. Aaaannnd... Republicans = redneck? Wow, thats the last thing I'd ever call them. Did the world just turn upside down or someizit? Should the society, or community change, and possibly overburden itself to make one tiny little guy safe, yes?
But first lets get the fact straight. The law does not prohibit you from killing an intruder of your properties when faced with danger (such as being lunged at, I suspect the student won't get charged. I can't even say one slice (big or small) is excessive force. One could argue that the last thing you would expect someone is to lunge at a person with a sword, without your own. But as the law recognizes private property and allows the protection of private property, then that is the right down opposite of being a redneck.

There could be two situations. The burglar could try and escape without the things he tried to steal, in which the chaser would no longer have further reason to chase the burglar. But if the burglar was trying to escape with the theft, then- if it were up to me, I would attack and try to disable the burglar. I can't say if I am within my rights to kill at that point.

Just a note, Washington state has a Castle Doctrine, but is made up largely of democrats (those of us here in the coastal population centers outnumber the republicans to the east).

That aside, I think Cent is right, at least about how jail space needs to be conserved. Prison populations are usually extremely close, if not above, the prison's rated capacity, and "at midyear 2007, 62% of inmates held in local jails had not been convicted or were awaiting trial". ¹

That was not his point, as he said they would become criminals, which would not happen if it weren't a crime. The rest of this seems to be 'Most people disagree with you', which seems irrelevant.

Yay, governments against torture. While the US tortured in Guatemano, Russia tortured in Chechnya, etc. Because they LIKE using ineffective techniques. Now, if only the moral world told me what's wrong with my particular argument for it...
Rednecks and/or rich people. Actually, I believe a better categorization would be 'idiots' and 'those who care about themselves, and not the world'.
Fine. I can defend myself if he lunges at me with a knife, but I can't defend myself if he comes, tells me to back against to wall, warns that he'll kill me if I reach for the phone, and steals all the goodies I possess.

I believe my strict approach to the problem will result in significantly less expenditures on dealing with criminals, not even taking into account the lower crime rate I expect. That's the basics of what I'm saying. If you disagree, please tell me why.

Then provide Citations.

As Moose has already shown, the consequence of killing someone in self defence varies from state to state. Some states have Castle Doctrine/Castle Law.


A lot of law completely agrees with what most of you are saying (except Centreri).

As for harsher penalties creating a lower crime rate, I thought this would be the case too, but there's also the (possibly good chance) that it wont have any effect at all. If we consider the people who are committing these acts, they're already risking themselves against being caught, and I think we would have to make the penalty unreasonably harsh to have a real deterrant effect, breaking the whole "let the punishment fit the crime" idea and violating the "there shall be no cruel and unusual punishments" part of the constitution. On top of all that, the deterrant effect may not be as powerful as we might like.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 27 2009, 1:05 am by Vrael.

I know this makes me a heretic, but the Constitution was a normal document written by men, not gods. It can be wrong, and can be counterproductive in making the greater amount of the population happier and more secure. Personally, I know that if I knew that stealing something could very easily get me killed, rather than put into jail where I get food and shelter (well, and maybe 1% chance that you get killed anyway), I'd think several times before deciding. It's almost definitely that it'll have some affect, but we won't know if it'll almost completely solve the problem or just halve it or something in between until we try it. Or create a very advanced simulation of it.

Murder isn't even an act of desperation - it's more an act of cruelty, as, really, a person gets very little by killing someone. That this criminal act could get you not only capital punishment, but torture, would be very powerful deterrent.

I think you underestimate how fucked up some peoples lives are.

I agree, but I think thinking about the factors involved could lead us in the right direction.

It does not make you a heretic, and it was certainly written by men. Of course one of the issues with implementing some sort of torture/deterrent punishment scheme is what kind of government you implement and what sort of moral code it espouses. For someone like you it's an obvious solution, but for someone like me, who clearly has a different set of values, the government and morality necessary creates a conflict that is irreconcilable with this deterrant method of punishment that you suggest, so its not an option really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights#Philosophies
Actually when it comes to morality, the one who gains the majority becomes right and the minority, wrong. That is just as relevent as your argument seems to disregard morality. And in this world, people uphold and value morality as a set of code to dictate our actions before our gains.

Also, there is nothing wrong with your arguments. I am not arguing about whats more efficient. I am asserting that your arguments are disregarding morality, and you've even agreed yourself.

Actually, theres nothing that prevents you from killing an intruder w/ a weapon- although I would probably do what the criminal says because in your case, the criminal would most likely have a gun. What the law prevents you from are things like shooting someone several times over even after they were dead- or such things as manslaughter.
Also, wouldn't it be kinda hilarious if I were wielding a sword, and the criminal a knife, and the criminal told you to back up against the wall even if you had a bigger, better weapon?

Also, you're labeling Republicans as idiots and not caring about the world- why and for what reason? Do you have proof? Does being selfish make someone an 'idiot'? Sure it makes them selfish, but selfish -> idiotic, I think you're getting emotional.
And Centreri, would you care to explain how torture is an ineffective method? I think there was no such mention of such facts. Albeit torture is a psychological method of getting 'satisfactory' answers, not the truth. That leaves a lot of room for abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture#Ethical_arguments_regarding_torture

All I've done there was a little summary and evaluation of the main article posted in this topic.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 27 2009, 1:28 am by BeDazed.

Some people will do it anyway. Some won't. Those that won't are those that drive lower crime rates.
Yeah. You consider it immoral. Dammit, all my brilliant ideas are immoral.
Not necessarily. In Russia, for example, many people, possibly a majority, would be for capital punishment for very corrupt government officials, because everyone knows its such a crippling problem, draining billions and billions. Does this suddenly make capital punishment moral? Do morals change with location? Sometimes your abstract 'morals' have to be sacrificed for a better lifestyle for more people. I would call that a very... 'moral' choice.

Moose's quote from Wikipedia shows that unless you had good reason to think that your life was in danger, you aren't allowed to kill the attacker.

My athiesm leaves me with contempt for those who use religion to attract voters or to forge government policy. My contempt for the Republican party stems from my contempt for the whole polarized two-party system coupled with my contempt for a broad range of their policies, from international relations to abortion to their commitment to an unregulated economy which favors the very rich (selfish). The other broad category of republicans, aside from the rich, are those who are drawn to the party because of religious beliefs; because I have strong feelings on the matter, I believe it justified if I call this particular group 'idiots'.

As for torture, here, from the wikipedia article:' National and international legal prohibitions on torture derive from a consensus that torture and ill-treatment are immoral, as well as being impractical.[3] Despite these international conventions, however, many organizations (e.g. Amnesty International) that monitor abuses of human rights report a widespread use of torture condoned by states in many regions of the world.'. Not inefficient, but impractical, actually.

You should look in surprise that most your ideas have been suggested at some point in the past.

Then we all know that torture is not an option, either way.

In fact, yes. And with time too.

Aha, so you're actually a Utilitarian?

Not a bad moral philosophy but it requires a lot of wisdom.

Naturally. I'm not a brilliant philosopher, I'm just arguing for existing ideas.

Except that it's obviously NOT impractical, as its used by governments worldwide and can, as I have said, lead to significantly lower crime rates. And no one has been able to refute that yet, because it's simply true. We don't know the extent to which it would lower them, but it'll help nevertheless.

Makes morals rather abstract, does it not? Why base an entire argument on something that changes? Will torture become moral at some point? Say... if its used for the greater good?
I'm not really against the torture at Guatemano Bay, and my opposition to it is generally opposition to the Iraqi war, which seems to be a war against a monster created by the USA itself (same as Afghanistan, actually, but it WAS Afghanistan where Al-Quaeda is based, so..) who hadn't done many horrible things in quite a while. Same with Chechnya - Sure, Kadyrov's been accused of torture and murder, but at least Chechnya is more-or-less secure, and he's been so effective that he almost squeezed out the extremists into neighboring republics. Not as good as wiping them out, but if the whole area had leaders like him just for the duration of the crisis, the conflict could be over.

I suppose so. I actually expressed this basic view a lot, when arguing for something resembling communism and for eugenics. As for my wisdom, I don't think I'd be a great judge of that. Everyone my age thinks that they're brilliant and most of those surrounding them are mindless drones/idiots. http://xkcd.com/610/

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 27 2009, 2:22 pm by Centreri.

Morality has a great amount of history backing its validity when the concept itself is abstract. Because of its abstractness, people codified it into a concept more understandable to others.

I think that it was labeled as impractical because it would cause more conflict then it solves. Governments have been overthrown before by the abuse of such things as torture- which is a cruel method of getting your 'satisfactory answers' instead of the 'truth'. That is just as bad as one's sadistic pleasure of torture- and I can only imagine how much it can be abused if it were state sponsored.

Greater good in itself is utilitarian, and torture wouldn't be an option if it caused more problems then it solved. There could be many other factors people desire that torture has negative effects on. Because of this, even utilitarianism does not justify torture as a viable method of crime reduction. (There are several viable forms of 'greater good' such as charity and volunteer parties for the poor and sick. Actions out of good will change the world without causing more conflict.)

And morality comes in place to reduce as much conflict there can be, and to solve conflicts more efficiently. This is one of the reasons, actually utilitarian way of describing why there are ethical codes in place. And is one of the reasons why people do not disregard morality.

Guatemano - state sponsored. Chechnya - state sponsored. Also, the only 'conflict' about Guatemano was some criticism of the government, and the only 'conflict' about Chechnya was - again - some criticism of the government. Torture itself, I believe, saved many lives within the last twenty years. If, even with this, it causes more conflict than it solves, than this is simply because people were raised condemning torture, as well as because of politics. These are both solvable problems.

I'm not saying morality is bad or necessarily hindering. I'm saying that it must sometimes be overlooked for the greater good. In some cases, a moral leader can avert conflict; in some cases, for the greater good, the 'immoral' must be done. I believe torture fits into this category.