Works for me!
I was gonna say, put them in stocks in the main square of whatever city their victims live in, and have barrels of rotting vegetables handy; but upon further reflection, I like your idea.
I too do not think that it is murder. But it is an action that causes death. Am I entirely morally upright if I allow a person to die in an accident whom I might save? If I see someone planning to commit suicide, am I under no moral responsibility to try and stop them? The question is not whether or not it is murder, at least in my eyes; the question is whether harm has been done, and whether the person in question is responsible for that harm. In my eyes, physically murdering someone and creating the circumstances such that suicide is likely, for example, are not necessarily equally reprehensible; but I see no reason that they may not be, and the degree of theft in some cases may be enough to make a comparison fair.
If Blalron’s assumption was that money is the only thing that matters, then he would not care about murder, which he evidently does. And I agree with you; there are many things in life that are more important than money. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that the loss of money is therefore trivial enough to never warrant the death penalty, especially when in such considerable quantities here. And i’m surprised to find someone whose argument is that the basis for the death penalty is the sacredness of human life feel the need to argue on the loss of things other than just life.
I was talking about your particular beliefs as to the basis of why we have laws on murder. Your claim was, roughly, that the idea that murder is a wrong considerably beyond theft has been around for a long time, and thus that it comes from a “belief in a special and unalienable value of human life”. If that’s not the argument you were making there, I apologise, but that’s certainly what it seemed to be.
Why is it necessary for us to believe something is sacred or given unique value by a source higher than human law for us to value one thing over another? Do you value a dollar as the same amount as a cent? One life over two lives? If you are able to draw a distinction between two different things and judge each as worth differing amounts without requiring the involvement of a higher source, then it is likewise not necessary to do so when one of the things being valued is a life.
And i’d tend to disagree that most people view all human lives as worth more than any amount of money. If anything, I imagine most people could point to at least one person they would happily allow to be killed if it meant they got some amount. Offer the option to kill Osama bin Laden to the average American, and offer them a couple of bucks if they agree to it, and I imagine you’d have quite a few takers.
I don’t think they are equally bad. I would say the killing of a 30-year-old is less bad, all other things being equal. Let me ask you a question in return; Is killing an 8-year-old worse than killing a 30-year-old? I really rather imagine that most people would say yes. So why are the two murders not equally bad?
Many states have laws on the books that only give the death penalty for killing certain categories of people, such as children, witnesses to a crime, and police officers. It’s obvious that “every death is equally bad” is not even true legally.
This, IMO, is a very twisted point of view and I find it ironic that you’re condeming the thieves as greedy, because it’s a point of view I can only imagine an excessively greedy person holding. Like I said in another thread recently, take everything away from me and I still live to play the game again tomorrow.
Call it greedy if you will, but who would slave 8 to 12 hours a day, 5 days out of the week at a factory for 40 years if they knew their lifesavings were going to vanish in a ponzi scheme? If the Ghost of Investment Future showed up and told you that any money you save WILL disappear, are you really going to work so hard?
Personally, I don’t feel that the death penalty really works as a deterrent to homocide. However, I believe that it would be an excellent deterrent to white-collar crime.
I’m not even sure what your point is here but the bottom line is that you’re saying money = life. That’s twisted. Money did not exist for the vast majority of human existence and our ancestors got along well enough to deliver us all to 2008.
The problem then, are we going to start seeing arguments for the death penalty for massive scale burglary? I see a major slippery slope here.
Yeah, and it ends with hanging Kulaks from trees because they are ‘enemies of the people’.
Not exactly. It’s hard to quantify human suffering in measurable units, but Bernard Madoff is probably responsible for more human agony and suffering than your typical Death Row inmate. If the Death Penalty actually did have a measurable deterrant effect (Businessman are probably more coldly calculating rational agents than a street criminal), it may be worth looking into.
If someone is cheated out of their savings, and it is determined after their death that their lack of funds deprived them of an organ transplant or a special physician who might have saved their life, could that be called “murder by theft”?
Yes, I do realize something like that would be a bitch to prove in a criminal court of law, but what about civil court?
I probably didn’t phrase that exactly right, but maybe you can figure out what I mean?
Thanks
Q
It’s a nice strawman you’re setting up here.
First of all, there’d have to be a specific law on the books beforehand so the potential criminal knows what he’s risking. The crime of intentionally (not negligently, it has to be done on purpose) stealing or defrauding an amount equal to or exceeding the Value of a Statistical Life (7.22 million) is punishable by life in prison or death. An impartial jury trial yields a guilty verdict. As long as due process is followed here, I can’t really cry too much over this happening.