Texas to Commit Murder in 3 Weeks

[Harry Tuttle]

The death penalty is the basic principle of societal dominance over the individual and the promise that society can make people pay for their actions. It's the "endall" promise that society can back up the rule of law by permanently dealing with the problem. Everything else is just beating around the bush. I wouldn't call it vengeance because the state has no emotional tie to the perp, victim, or crime. The reaction is not to punish, but rather to end a problem and to create closure.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
The death penalty is the basic principle of societal dominance over the individual and the promise that society can make people pay for their actions. It's the "endall" promise that society can back up the rule of law by permanently dealing with the problem. Everything else is just beating around the bush. I wouldn't call it vengeance because the state has no emotional tie to the perp, victim, or crime. The reaction is not to punish, but rather to end a problem and to create closure.

This is a description, not an argument.

Try again. I'm going to enjoy kicking your ass.

Frankly, the bolded portion makes you sound like a Nazi (and no, I am not joking. I am utterly repelled by your comment).

[SlowwHand]

You can think what you want.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That's your opinion.

Why is it my fault if the majority of people who answered that survey are morons.

You'll have to come up with something better than the fallacy of majority belief.

But you can't, because as has been proven time and time again on this forum, your political opinions tend to be indefensible prejudices.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Agathon
Frankly, the bolded portion makes you sound like a Nazi

as has been proven time and time again on this forum, your political opinions tend to be indefensible prejudices.

Now I remember why I didn't at all like you the last time you were active on this forum trying to debate other people.

What made you go away? Please tell me, in as much detail as possible.

[Lorizael]

It began with an 'a' and ended with 'sher.'

[MRT144]

It rhymed with basher. thrasher. masher.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Agathon
The bolded portion is what is objectionable. In order for this law to make sense, it has to have some relationship with common standards by which responsibility is judged. Otherwise the law is entirely arbitrary (this one of the points on which the "legal positivism" idiocy comes unstuck).

The second part (B) assigns responsibility to those who are negligent, which is pretty straightforward and unobjectionable.

The first part (A) is simply nonsense. In the absence of negligence the only way to establish culpability in the ordinary sense is intent (you can inherit responsibility in certain cases, like being an shareholder of a corporation, but while you must pay, you aren't held culpable in the same way).

I don't particularly see much wrong with the concept of Felony Murder, which has been a common law practice for many centuries. If you commit a felony in which there is a foreseeable danger to life, and someone actually dies, it should be more than simply a manslaughter charge.

Saying the only way to establish culpability is intent (outside of negligence) is absolutely silly and displays a lack of knowledge of basic legal concepts of transferred intent (based on foreseeability) that every legal code has. For example, a guy shooting his gun at a bird in a residental neighborhood, missed and kills a kid... the intent should be transferred because he was in a residential neighborhood and the risk of killing someone was great. It shouldn't merely be considered negligent and go to manslaughter (then again, it'd probably be 2nd degree murder for reckless disregard to human life).

If you want, you can see transfered intent as a form of negligent behavior if it makes you feel better .

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MRT144
It rhymed with basher. thrasher. masher.

Believe that and you'll believe anything.

Why not check out the facts? You can search through the archive yourself and find my last few weeks worth of posts before I left. It was around the time of the Lebanon war, and I don't think Asher had been posting then. I certainly hadn't butted heads with him for a while. I got warned for flaming one of the war threads, and decided I was bored of the place.

Again, why not check out the facts before leaping to speculation. The archive is right there...

[MRT144]

its more fun to speculate wildly, especially when it involves your worst enemy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't particularly see much wrong with the concept of Felony Murder, which has been a common law practice for many centuries. If you commit a felony in which there is a foreseeable danger to life, and someone actually dies, it should be more than simply a manslaughter charge.

I think it makes a mockery of our concept of responsibility. At most, you should be held as an accessory to the crime.

Saying the only way to establish culpability is intent (outside of negligence) is absolutely silly and displays a lack of knowledge of basic legal concepts of transferred intent (based on foreseeability) that every legal code has.

Yes, but anyone who thinks about it for five minutes understands that the law is in many cases strange and at odds with reality. I don't think I ever said that intent was the only way to establish culpability, just that you can't claim the same kind of moral responsibility for someone who has no intent as compared with someone who is merely negligent.

For example, a guy shooting his gun at a bird in a residental neighborhood, missed and kills a kid... the intent should be transferred because he was in a residential neighborhood and the risk of killing someone was great. It shouldn't merely be considered negligent and go to manslaughter (then again, it'd probably be 2nd degree murder for reckless disregard to human life).

I don't think it makes any sense to transfer intent here. The charge of recklessness is appropriate. But this is just a higher degree of negligence, not a deliberate intent to kill someone. Intent means just that, whatever the law says.

If you want, you can see transfered intent as a form of negligent behavior if it makes you feel better .

Sure, but I wouldn't engage in connotative falsehood by calling it "transferred intent".

I don't think you are actually disagreeing with me. At most, I'd argue that this Foster chap was guilty of negligence. Whatever degree depends on the rest of the evidence. But treating him as equivalent to the actual triggerman is insane and unjust.

I notice the death penalty people are awfy quiet...

[Kuciwalker]

Because the argument right now isn't really about the morality of the DP?

/from skimming

[DinoDoc]

They also already had this arguement about the justness of felony murder statutes before the senetence was commuted.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think it makes a mockery of our concept of responsibility.

Well isn't that nice.

you can't claim the same kind of moral responsibility for someone who has no intent as compared with someone who is merely negligent.

Hey, if you are incredibly reckless, I think the moral responsibility is equivalent. You should have known the foreseeable consequences of your actions unless you are mentally retarded (not a slur, but actually mentally retarded).

But this is just a higher degree of negligence, not a deliberate intent to kill someone.

An utterly reckless disregard of life should be treated with greater gravity than a simple accident. Furthermore, realizing that while committing a serious felony, someone's death along the way will get you for murder has a pretty nice deterrant effect.

I know some people think that intent is so much worse, but IMO, if you are so completely and utterly reckless that you are a danger to people around you, then you are just as bad.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But this is just a higher degree of negligence, not a deliberate intent to kill someone.

An utterly reckless disregard of life should be treated with greater gravity than a simple accident. Furthermore, realizing that while committing a serious felony, someone's death along the way will get you for murder has a pretty nice deterrant effect.

I know some people think that intent is so much worse, but IMO, if you are so completely and utterly reckless that you are a danger to people around you, then you are just as bad.

Absolutely. Felonious assault is the basis for intent here. No tears if he'd not been spared, no cheering now that he has.