Is a killer responsible 100% for their actions?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by darksidZz, Jan 28, 2015.


What you believe?

Poll closed Feb 17, 2015.
  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Maybe

  4. Unsure

    0 vote(s)
  1. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Poll to be followed with discussion.

    My premise is society contributes to a killers mental state, therefore it too may play some part in the responsibility for murder even if not directly. Also it might be said a persons lack of awareness and ability to defend oneself can contribute to murder indirectly, therefore again we see society should teach people from birth how best to stop a threat.

    What do you believe?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Spellbound Banned Valued Senior Member

    I have always said that a person who's actions can be 100% trusted should be 100% free.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. billvon Valued Senior Member

    And everything contributes to society, from the landscape to rain patterns to popular fiction. However, a person is responsible for their own actions (unless, of course, they are insane.)
    I'm all for self defense education, but that is a separate issue.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Many murders are done to people who know defense but can't act quick enough for the murderer knows what they are doing but the unsuspecting person never does.
  8. youreyes amorphous ocean Valued Senior Member

    DarksidZz...please for the love of this universe...tell me you did not do anything of the sorts...right?
  9. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Belief has no place in law.
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Define "killer."
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    In the USA, everyone is expected to teach their children to obey the laws. Obviously some laws are not widely respected and are broken every day, such as:
    1. Zoning ordinances that prohibit keeping chickens in residential areas
    2. Licensing regulations making it impossible for new people to enter a profession, removing the threat of competition for existing businesses, so they can charge more.​
    In the USA we call that "blaming the victim" and it is regarded as an evil, uncivilized point of view. I strongly suggest that you keep this opinion to yourself. If your neighbors and co-workers find out that you think this way, you will be (at best) ostracized and (at worst) fired from your job and abandoned by your friends.
    In the USA, the vast majority of murders are performed with guns: 25,000 per year. If this were any other kind of death, it would be immediately identified as an epidemic and the government would pour millions of dollars into ending it. Instead, the government makes it ridiculously easy for people to acquire guns... even obviously unstable people like George Zimmerman and Adam Lanza. The National Rifle Association is regarded as an honorable society, and it lobbies Congress and state legislatures to do nothing to reduce gun violence.

    I propose the following solution: Every time an innocent American is killed by a gunshot, a member of the NRA should be chosen at random and executed.
    That's hardly true in the USA. Have you ever served on a jury? The beliefs of the jurors play a major role in the outcome of every trial. The doctrine of jury nullification specifically allows members of juries to vote according to their consciences even if it conflicts with the law.
    As I noted, 25,000 innocent Americans are killed by Americans with guns every year. This excludes the 5,000 fatal shootings that can be claimed to be justified--although not always the only way to solve the dispute.

    Therefore a "killer" can be anyone who believes that he has a right to kill another human being in order to protect his own life, his family, other members of the community, or to prevent the theft or destruction of his property (or his family's or his neighbors'). The majority of the gun deaths in the USA fall into these categories. And as I noted above, 5/6 of these killings are the result of anger, faulty reasoning, misidentification, clumsiness, stupidity, poor visibility, paranoia, failure to prevent children from finding firearms, etc.

    Suicide is a major cause of death. I have no objection to people being allowed to end their lives if they have a reasonable expectation that it will never become happier, healthier, etc. My problem with using a gun for suicide is that it is happens so fast that the victim is denied the opportunity to think it over more carefully. If he had to learn how to slit his wrists in the bathtub, take an overdose of medication without overdoing it and vomiting, fill his garage with exhaust without killing the family cat, figure out how to tie a noose that will not leave him gagging or decapitate his corpse, he has some work ahead of him and by the time he has the resources in place he may have decided that life isn't so bad after all.

    Of course "killer" also identifies people with criminal intent, who kill people in order to steal their property or in other ways to prevent them from being an impediment to their goal of stealing property or committing other kinds of crimes. Since most murders are committed with guns, the obvious solution to this problem is to make guns less available.

    And the only way we'll accomplish that is to implement my strategy of holding every member of the National Rifle Assholes responsible for every gun death.
  12. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    You are a really smart person.
  13. Jason.Marshall Banned Banned

    In the USA we call that "blaming the victim" and it is regarded as an evil, uncivilized point of view. I strongly suggest that you keep this opinion to yourself. If your neighbors and co-workers find out that you think this way, you will be (at best) ostracized and (at worst) fired from your job and abandoned by your friends

    To promote self defense is not to blame victims this is reality you cant always be there to protect people unless you are as fast as superman or flash , so there may come a time they have to protect themselves and "Self Defence" may just end up saving their life as well as the attakers life.
  14. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Most murders take place within a family, aunts, uncles, father, son, daughter and mother. So many times the victim never knows he/she will be shot and killed for there many times is no warning. Even if guns were somehow outlawed murderers will use other means like knives, ropes and any other thing that could be used in killing someone so I don't think taking away guns will stop murders from happening at all. True it will affect some but most will carry out the killings in other manners.
  15. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    As has been documented time and time again, guns make it so much easier to kill people, than, say fists, feet, rope, knives, axes etc etc.

    A gun is inherently more dangerous than a knife, since a gun can be used reliably at range. Pretty sure most people would think twice, if they risked greater physical harm by having to be up close, as opposed to firing from a relatively safe distance.

    Murders will, of course, still happen, but imo, they'll be rarer.
  16. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Environment/genes makes everbody (includin ther actions) what they are (unless thers some other cause(s) i dont know about)... an if you murder sombody you may be held responsible an unjustly punished for those actions.!!!

    But no... a killer is not responsible for a murder they may have comited... or any other of ther actions.!!!
  17. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Nah, we are definitely at odds here. Let us omit extraneous factors.

    You are always responsible for your actions. I mena, justification should not be grey area.

    How do you account for those who have done well DESPITE their environment\upbringing? I am surprised people think like this. It is a curious me....and yet dont walk acrodss these peoples lawns....ohhhh, no. Dont scratch their cars...ohhhh no.
  18. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Give an example.!!!
  19. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    There are millions of examples. Off the top of my head: Bill Clinton is an example. I am not a fan or political just one that comes to mind. For that matter you can find numerous examples in political life. Usually in America though. Like in South America, you probably have to kill someone to rise to the top...and elsewhere you are merely born into it.

    Now, i should say. No one has the "right" to harm another.
  20. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    So ther was no positive influences in Bill Clintons life.???

    Shoud murders be punished.???
  21. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Bill Clinton had a hard life growing up. You asked for examples. According to you Bill would have been a failure. Now, politics aside, Bill was not a failure.

    Shoud murders be punished.???

    I dont know what you mean. I am a Catholic Socialist and YES i DO think murderers should be punished.

    To sum up, in the words of a capable anonymous writer in "The Quarterly Review", Socialism has for "its
    philosophical basis, pure materialism; its religious basis is pure negation; its ethical basis the theory thatsociety makes the individuals of which it is composed, not the individualssociety, and that therefore the structure of society determines individual conduct, which involves moral irresponsibility; its economicbasis is the theory that labour is the sole producer, and that capital is the surplus value over bare subsistence produced by labour and stolen by capitalists; its juristic basis is the right of labour to the whole product; its historical basis is the industrial revolution, that is the change from small and handicraft methods of production to large and mechanical ones, and the warfare of classes; its political basis isdemocracy. . . . It may be noted that some of these [bases] have already been abandoned and are in ruins, others are beginning to shake; and as this process advances the defenders are compelled to retreat and take up fresh positions. Thus the form of the doctrine changes and undergoes modification, though all cling still to the central principle, which is the substitution of public for private ownership".
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2015
  22. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    My pont is... ther are influences that cause a person to turn out successful even if they had a "hard life"... just as... ther are reasons a person may turn to murder even tho some may see them as havin had an easy life.!!!

    As in death penalty.???
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Liberalism tends to favor the criminal over the victim. This is programmed by leadership, so their leadership is better protected from the penalties of their crime. In the IRS scandal, although a crime was committed, nobody lost their job, because the criminal was protected, while the victim deserved it, right?

    This liberal philosophy is also applied to murder, with the terror and suffering of the victim counting for less than the suffering of the criminal, who initiated the suffering in the first place. The irony is the law of the streets, where the criminals live, make use of the death penalty. They know if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword. The question becomes why do liberals water this down for the murderer? What makes liberals relate better to a murderer than to their victims? Why do they bend over backwards to justify the murderer?

    Defense lawyers are a major contributor to the democratic party. Each is in the others pocket. This occupation benefits by maintaining a high supply of criminals to defend. If there were suddenly no criminals, there would be massive defense lawyer layoffs. To create more jobs for defense lawyers we need more criminals. To earn their campaign contributions democrats need to create a propaganda that leads to this end.

    One way to do that are criminal rights so one can recycle the existing criminals easier. Another is to increase the number of laws and regulations. Each new law will add more places someone will be in violation and therefore need a good defense lawyer. Life in prison for murderers provides more jobs than the death penalty since this is 40 years in prison versus 10 years, allows more lawyer interaction. Another scam would be a heavy handed busy body government that gathers too much information on its citizens. This adds jobs for more defense lawyers. One may notice how democrats seem to parallel the needs of defense lawyers.

    The main problem is lawyers are the only occupation, that I can think of, that is allowed to self police. Doctors can't self police. They are policed by lawyers, yet doctors are considered more trustworthy than lawyers. What would happen is doctors could self police so all final decisions about doctoring and malpractice was settled by doctors? Or say teachers could self police so the final decisions about students could only be make by active teachers and not bureaucrats or lawyers? There could be conflict of interest even though these are professions rated high in trustworthiness. Maybe we need to have other occupations police the lawyers, since conflict of interest is higher with those considered less trustworthy.

Share This Page