Get a vasectomy then.
Get a vasectomy then.
According to my own bias, my reasoning is air tight. Take someone else's life? You don't get to do that, for any reason, ever. It's not justifiable under any circumstances. If you're incapable of understanding that - then you don't belong on earth as part of the human race. Give me the intelligent argument for why we should preserve the schizophrenic murderer's life.
My logical reasoning on suicide is that no bond in life is more important or profound than parent-child. Parents dictate so many of their child's determining factors for success in life - http://www.businessinsider.com/paren...quality-2014-1... You are essentially entering into a contract with that child when you bring them into the world that you will set them up for success... If you shirk that responsibility - then you are selfish.
I just wanted to hurt you with the Dodgers comment. Vin Scully blows that theory out of the water.
What if someone murders your kids right in front of your face, so you know 100% for sure they did it, and out of rage you kill them. They weren't threatening your life at the time, so it's not self-defense, you did it 100% as retribution for killing your kids. Other than killing your kids' killer in retaliation, you have otherwise been a 100% model citizen for your entire life, not so much as a parking ticket.
Is that person also a worthless person who no longer deserves to live?
No, your reasoning is stupid. Like, we're friends, so I feel comfortably telling you that you logic is monumentally stupid, and you should read more books to make up for that post, haha.
In law, and I'm not making a legal argument, it's just a nice reference point, there's the mens rea and actus rea. Mens rea is 'meant' or intent. Actus rea is act, or action. If a child, kills someone, and they scientifically cannot be in actual knowledge of their actions (and this is an actual thing so please don't try to argue against it because if you make me get the ******* sources out I will and I'll be grumpy) how could they have meant it? A 14 year old on the baseball diamond gets into a fight with someone and hits them in the face with a bat. The person dies. Yeah, the 14 can definitely never change, regardless of their basic child brain, so kill them. That's your argument, and the logic doesn't follow.
The schizophrenic murderer, let's call him..Buff. So Buff can't get his medication (this is America, this is not uncommon) and his issues are so strong and brutal that being untreated he essentially is in a state of being where he doesn't know what's real anymore. Buff is walking the streets, and can't really function. Not function in the 'go to work on time way,' but the 'that's a bus and not a monster that wants to kill me' sort of way. In a state of confusion or rage he starts hitting people, the scenario doesn't matter.
Now, is that Buff? Is that Buff, whom, in a normal state, might drink absurdly stupid beverages, refuse to get his field-goaled sized gap fixed, or even dumber become friends with an arrogant ass so pompous as to refer to himself as a King via online message board? No, that Buff, while an idiot who roots for a shitty college team and probably cries after sex, is not the same guy who thought the bus was a dragon.
So when execution date comes, and Buff, in his normal state because the USSC requires him to get his meds, gets put to death, who are you punishing? The actual guy who basically wasn't there, or the crazed murderer who thought he was running from a dragon and knocked someone over onto the curb. The actual logical issue with your theory is that the 'intention' of knocking someone over in a mentally handicapped state should act as an actual intention regardless of the fact it came from someone who's a nutter.
The 14's understanding of their actions is scientifically disputed. It's why you can't execute someone who is mentally handicapped, albeit Florida has a history of trying. When that recently went to the SCOTUS the SCOTUS was hit with so many scientific studies about the mental state of of people that they, as conservative as the bench was (not politically, per se, but in terms of jurisprudence analysis) was like 'nope, can't do that. oh shit ****'.
So my response is as follows: Go Dodgers.
I've been suicidal in the past so I should never have kids. It's an interesting ethical argument.
So what happens if I'm stable and fine - and then everything hits the fan twelve years later? Specifics don't matter - we can draw up hypothetical, all day long.
My second response is this - do you guys have that thought now, after having kids, and being more seasoned in the world. Or did that occur to before kids? Did you guys, if you ever had issues, think about not having kids while having those issues?
You've kind of made my point for me here that legally we like to introduce all of these gray areas - and that's probably the right thing to do when trying to develop a just legal system... But MY point is that at the end of the day none of that really matters when a family loses a loved one because another person deliberately killed them.
I said "intentionally" murders someone... So the baseball bat example doesn't apply. I'm talking about intentionality. If you intentionally kill someone - that is never excusable and MY ENTIRE POINT IS THAT I AM UNMOVED BY THE MURDERER'S MENTAL COMPETENCY OR THEIR MOTIVATION FOR COMMITTING THE MURDER. Completely unmoved. Just kill them already as they no longer deserve to breathe my air.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)