Is the keeping someone from civilization the same thing as murder?
606290
I don't think I understand your question.  On the surface, of course not.  I suppose it depends on what you mean by "keeping someone from civilization."  Are you talking about kidnapping?  If they then starve to death, well, then yes, of course.  \n\nBut there are tribal societies that don't have much to do with the modern world.  In that case, *bringing* them to "civilization" would be tantamount to murder, as you would be destroying their way of life and quite possibility their mental and spiritual well-being as well.
776829
No.\n\nWould it be ok for YOU to murder if you didn't have to answer to the "higher law" of your deity?
912869
no is it important to kill a human?
999133
This is the 2nd post u have about murder, knock it off and dont kill anyone
239384
Yes, it's still murder. Everyone thinks God is on their side. Strangely, Muslims, Christians, and Jews believe in the SAME GOD and it's Muslims, Christians, and Jews who are going to blow everyone off the face of the Earth-WITH THE SAME GOD! I'm so confused!!!
901668
I find it interesting that most of the answers so far refer to "general deterrence" -- the idea that by having capital punishment, it will deter people from committing crime.  Of course, over and over, it has been proven that capital punishment provides NO general deterrence value.  First, most of the murders in society are committed by family members against family members, either calculated or in some sort of altered emotional state.  Second, the truly "sick" murderers are sociopaths and/or psychopaths -- those who can tell the difference between right and wrong but have no conscience, no morality, and no desire to be subjected to society's norms.  Thus, no deterrent system will work.  Third, the states with capital punishment have murder rates the same as, or higher than, states without capital punishment.  One would think that if the death penalty was a deterrent, then the capital punishment states would have at least a marginally lower murder rate.\nThus, general deterrence is not a genuine argument for capital punishment.\n\n(WM Critter's argument about deterrence is interesting.  Sure, that might deter some people, but not many, because so many murders are not truly rationally contemplated.  Further, killings in the heat of passion, or in "imperfect self defense" or when under the influence of substance, or under the influence of other people (i.e. gang shootings), and killings by sociopaths or psychopaths  would not stop.  That's JUST about the entirety of all murders committed.)\n\nThere are only two supportable arguments: Incapicatation and retribution.  Retribution has a bad connotation, but in criminology / legal theory, it means simply giving the criminal his "just desserts."  To some extent, we punish because people have taken actions we have deemed to be wrong in society, and society has a right (and obligation) to express its collective displeasure for that antisocial behavior.  The capital punishment argument goes like this:  By murdering with aggravating factors, the person has done something so abhorrent to society that the only effective way to show our displeasure is by taking the persons life.  By murdering, he has forfeitted his life, and it is society's obligation to put him to death.  Or, more straightforward "The guy's a sicko and deserves to fry."\n\nThis also tails into the argument for "incapacitation" -- the idea that society needs to protect itself from the offender reoffending.  By killing him, he certainly can't reoffend.  But of course, the counter to this point is that he can be locked up with no possibility of parole to be just as effective. \n\nTreatises have been written on these purposes of punishment, and I can't sum them up here.  But that should get you started.
13122
Yes, execution is an effective way of keeping people from committing crimes. Also, if you look at it, the 1,000 man was just executed last week I believe. It's not like we are killing people left and right.
960684
Not at all.  There was a recent case of this in Africa, with her sentence (being buried to the neck and stoned) being "reconsidered" because of the international reaction.  Other behaviors have been protested, too.  The South American custom of a man murdering his divorced wife if she starts to date again, and calling it a matter of "honor".  Indian women being burned in a "cooking accident" because the dowry didn't come through.  Why should Muslims be given a pass?  They just convicted a man in Georgia for cutting his daughter's clitoris off with a pair of scissors in order to be sure she remained "good".  He may protest his sentence, but she'll suffer longer than he will.  This isn't ethnocentricity.  It's an ability to empathize with a person who suffers.  Those without the ability to empathize aren't faithful to any religion; they're merely psychopaths.
242620
Yes.  Not for revenge and not for the purpose of being a deterrant, but simply because human life is so precious that there can be no other penalty to a murderer than to have their life taken from them.  Life for life.
78682
The principle here is not that they are able to kill people but for what reason. The execution of a known felon who has him/herself murdered countless lives has forfeited his/her right to live under the eyes of the law. If he/she were to be set free and thus cause more deaths on the population it is justified to take his life for the general good. They are against violence, random and senseless violence that is. Sanctioned killings whereby a person has commited crimes deemed irreconcievable in the eyes of the community is not a crime nor hyprocracy but justified and necessary. As for war it depends on the reason, to the defence of life and country it is a noble cause, for an outster of a regime not friendly to a country that is selfcentered hyprocracy for a nation that cherishes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
170439
Assuming your perspective just based on your question alone I'm guessing you have little knowledge about the 1998 cruise missile attack on the El-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan.  Since that plant produced the majority of the medicines which fought malaria, tuberculosis, and other countless curable diseases in Sudan, the missile strike led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Sudanese.  I'd say that was indeed a crime against humanity, wouldn't you?
816986
not quite the same thing really....although i am in favour of eutahnasia which should be strictly controlled and not  used as an excuse to get rid of people that we feel as a society are no longer able to contribute to our society..i,,m not in favour of the death penalty..you only have to look at the tragic case of Timothy Evans who hanged after being wrongly convicted of murdering his wife and baby daughter..in the end it turned out to be Christie,,what would you do then? you cannot bring back an innocent man from the dead and if this doesn,t convince you then just look at al the miscarriages of justice there have been
1087225
no I dont think so\n\nmaybe morality in some areas would go down but things like rape and murder are in society's best interest to prevent and punish.\n\nYou have evidence of this in atheistic communist countries that still had laws against theft murder and rape.
851237
Murder is murder is murder. It is up to us to control our anger. The only possible excuse to take a human life, aside from Capital Punishment, is in self defence and during a war.
242936
I never understood that either. If you kill somebody, you should, by all ethical and legal laws, be killed. And that's just the way it is.
635047
No, letting the government to kill someone is never justifiable because they are never 100% correct.
704951
Yes, it's called murder.