I hope this is the right forum to post this in; I have a feeling there will be opposing views. My friends and I were discussing assassinations the other night (don’t ask) and the question, “Is killing someone like a homeless person as bad as killing someone famous, like say, John Lennon?” came up. We had different views and I was hoping to get some more opinions. We were talking about the legal ramifications as well as the morality issue. Thoughts?
Well, all murder is equally tragic and horrible. The only difference is how people react. I would mourn equally for anyone I knew who passed on, or is murdered. It’s all proportional. I might be the only one who knows and mourns the homeless man, but thousands, millions, mourned the loss of Lennon, so it seems the level of grief is higher.
Did that make sense?
In an ideal world it would be equaly bad. But This is far from that… so i would say it is worse to kill someone famous. But not because of their fame. You could kill Micheal Jackson and no one would give a toss. Well, maybe they would, but the world would not be a worse place because of it.
Life is a one off, so it is the greatest thing each of us possess. So the homeless man would no doubt think him getting killed was as big a deal as JL kicking on. From the point of view of a dispassionate observer, however, the death of a homeless person is but a blip in the advancement of mankind, where as the passing on of talent would deifnatly register. Of course any individual in any position may contain valuable genetic material, but the chances of that are pretty equal across the board so we shall discount it.
The death of someone such as Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton before their discoveries would have been a great slowing of mankinds advancement, and as such a great evil.
John Lennon was a talented person, and enriched many peoples lives through his work. A homeless person, on average, has not. Though they give people perspective, which has value (ie.- i may be shit, but at least im not as bad off as them).
Another point, anybody can be a bum, but it takes quality to master music, or any other worthwhile endeavour.
Basically, id value life on potential to make a difference to your fellows.
Disjointed arent I?
I know homeless people but ive never heard of a john lennon.
To be absolutely politcally correct, I would like to point out that being homeless doesn’t mean you’re less worthwhile a person. Perhaps “drunken homeless bum who pees on the sidewalk” would make me feel better.
And this isn’t exactly the best example, but wasn’t Jewel at one point homeless (or at least living in a van)?
Did the killer who murdered the hypothetical homeless man plan the murder over a long period of time, move across the country to find his victim, lay in wait for him outside his home all day, get the man’s autograph as the first part of the plan and then empty the gun into his back from ambush? After twenty years in prison, does this killer claim that the homeless man would have forgiven him if he was alive?
Mark David Chapman does not deserve to stay in prison for at least another twenty years IMHO because John Lennon was more valuable. He should remain in prison because this was as cold blooded and premedited as a murder can be possibly be. From what I have heard of Chapman, to this day, instead of taking responsbility for his action, he offers glib excuses about how he wasn’t really killng a man but a fantasy that he had and obscene rationalizations that he should go free because that’s what John would have wanted.
Yes, I am a big John Lennon fan. And I believe that Chapman is a killer of the worst possible sort.
FWIW, gold medal sprinters Alvin and Calvin Harrison were living in a car or van of some sort a few years back.
DavisMcDavis– Yep, she was. I’m not sure for how long, though.
Legally, it should make no difference at all. You killed someone. In this case, justice should be blind to the identity of the victim.
Beyond that, the only difference should be the reason you mourn the victim. Someone may have mourned Lennon for the musical void he left or for the talent that was lost. OTOH, someone may have mourned a homeless person because of the day-to-day struggles they faced in their hard life or because the person reminded of how fortunate most of us are. (I’m ignoring the possible reasons someone could become homeless. They are irrelevant.) This difference does not make one lost life more or less tragic.
When I look at a homeless man, I always think, “He was once someone’s little boy. Someone used to kiss him and tickle his toes. Someone used to get excited when he walked into the room. He was special to someone. He probably had a mother who adored him.” Then I wonder about the circumstances that brought him to his current situation.
He most likely would be missed by someone. But if he had no one in the whole world who would miss him or who ever loved him, his murder would be and even more tragic end to a sad life.
-katy
I think he was one of the original Odd Couple. His father was a Russian revolutionary.
And if Michael Jackson is dead just who is going to write the books about beer?
With (possibly) the execption of homeless, John Lennon has probably qualified as all those things at some point in his life.
Yes, could we please stop using “homeless” as shorthand for worthless, insignifigent person? Lots of people have started out poor and homeless and have gone on to make great contributions to the world. Lots more have made great contributions and have for one reason or another, screwed up and ended up homeless.
Anyway, unlike a famous person, a homeless person will only be mourned by those who knew and loved him. Like most of us.
Honestly, bet – your 3nd and 3rd sentences directly contradict your first. As a former homeless person myself, I’m insulted. As an ex-Christian, I’m doubly insulted. Was Jesus just a guy who screwed up and ended up homeless?
Sigh I knew I was going to get in trouble for that “screwed up” part. I just meant most people don’t want to be homeless so it probably meant something when awry. Not necessarily their fault, but something. And I was think more about unintentional homelessness- broke and desperate not parapetetic and on a mission from God.
I don’t know what bothers you about the 2nd sentence. Unless it’s that you have to stop being poor and homeless before you can make a contribution to the world- which I don’t believe, but practically speaking it makes it easier.
OK, betenoir – I appreciate your revised and extended remarks. Some homeless are human wrecks. But, a lot of beggars are small-time con artists, who will try and make you think they are miserable for change. A lot of the druggies would get miserable if they couldn’t buy their heroine, but from the flip side I didn’t see as many Job-like rants (curse they day I was born, etc.) as you might think. So it isn’t all Jesus-freaks and “completely miserable” junkies, winos, and prostitutes as you might think (although minus the miserables that is about 80%) – there are hippies and punks and others who just like the lifestyle too.
(When I think of people who were homeless and went on to make a contribution to the world, this one Austrian guy who became a German politician comes to mind, but I digress)
I always liked this cartoon (apoligies to Jodi in advance)
…I don’t know what you think I think. I don’t think they’re Jesus freaks and “completely miserable”. I think they’re folks I know (some of whom are junkies and winos and prositutes. Some of them. At least some times.) I just think being homeless is a bitch. And really being homeless (as opposed to squatting like a lot of punks do) really not knowing where your going to lay your head…sucks. It ain’t easy.
It isn’t as hard a you think.
Both, of course, should be murder in the eyes of the law where all are equal, but we tend to place higher value on famous people.
As for the homeless man bit, well I never liked Lennon. I thought him a squirrel, consider Yoko homely and nuts and his son a loser, so I’d probably figure the homeless man his technical equal. Yet, the homeless guy spent/spends most of his time drunk or stoned, contributing little to society, smells and would probably piss on your shoes, even if he was, at one time, a rocket scientist. Lennon contributed, at least to the limit of spending his money, keeping the news media happy, and, staying out of trouble.
There are often many reasons for the homeless to be homeless, so that has to be considered also. Very few people pop up one day, toss their worldly goods to the winds and choose to live in dumpsters, cardboard boxes, derelict houses or under bridges just for a change.
The killer of either deserves to spend the same time in jail as he/she would for killing anyone.
However, society will see the loss of Lennon, who had the money to be cool, reflective, ponder the universe and decide on which useless protest to perform next as a greater loss than the guy, broke, harmless, quiet, dirty who lives in a box and mainly concentrates on where his next meal is coming from, if he can find work or get medical help.
This is one of the reasons I’ve heard in opposition to “victim impact statements”. A wealthy or famous or influential person would have presumably have many more people to give victim impact statements than a homeless person…thus suggesting that one murder is more heinous than another, and except for certain cases (like killing a cop), thats not the law.
I dont think the reference to a homeless person is important. I assume the meaning refers to someone to who has not contributed anything, and is not likely to contribute anything.
Ergo the question could be rephrased- Is the life of someone who has nothing to offer worth as much as that of one who does?
No.