TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- "Justifiable Homicide", a Valid Concept?

"Justifiable Homicide", a Valid Concept?

I was reading an article in today's Chicago Tribune about the upcoming execution of Paul Hill, who killed an abortion doctor and the man escorting him to the clinic in 1994. Here is a link to the article:

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/cent...ews/6658572.htm

And a similar article from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/28/a...n.ap/index.html

Now, I don't want to get into a discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of legalized abortion. That topic is too emotionally charged for most people and simply is not a good one for objective discussion.

What I want to key in on is this concept of "justifiable homicide" and its seeming hypocrisy. If homicide is wrong, how can it be justified?

Is there ever a time when such a case exists? Is there really such a thing as "justifiable homicide?"

This is the opener....now time to discuss

MrS

(I may or may not put in my views later on)

Justifiable Homicide could mean self defence. If someones trying to kill you and you shoot them, i think its justifiable.

IF u can put a family pet down for old age, insanity or simply because theres no room or home for it. U can put a family member down for old age or insanity. As we are all members of the same human family the same rules stand. Thats my point.

Death will always come. Just because we dont understand it or what if anything happens thereafter doesnt mean its bad, wrong, or should be avboided at all costs becuase it might be hard to deal with.

So i think there is grounds for justifiable homicide in many areas.

quote:

Originally posted by Nadi Justifiable Homicide could mean self defence. If someones trying to kill you and you shoot them, i think its justifiable.

I was gonna mention this, and I agree with you. The only thing about self-defence in America is that some states do not have a Self-Defence Law. So, even if you kill someone because they are trying to kill you, you can still be incarcerated. You'd probably get a lesser sentence, but it's still murder. I personally think that that's just plain stupid.

Justifiable Homocide and Self Defense are two different terms in my book and Self Defense does not fall under Justifiable Homocide. I guess if there is no law providing self defense...I'm not sure where to go with that...however, I think that what this article, and post means is going out to kill someone for a cause. Meaning, you are not being attacked and trying to save your own life. These are pre-meditated acts, and then carried out with the cause given: "Abortion is bad, so I shot the Doctor"...etc

Thus IMO, Justifiable Homocide shouldn't be a valid argument for nullifying/reducing a sentence. It doesn't really matter that you killed a person because of "said" reason. It's no better/worse than killing them for the kind of shampoo they use. You commited a crime, based on a belief, not a direct threat to yourself.

It depends all upon how it's defined and what that definition includes as acts.

exactly what i was going to point out as PhloTron mentioned.
Murder/homicide is a pre-meditated act. You have the intention to kill and you follow thru with the act, and self defence doesnt fit into this. killing someone without pre-medition is manslaughter.

hence (gonna copy/paste PhloTron cause he said it so well):

quote:

Thus IMO, Justifiable Homocide shouldn't be a valid argument for nullifying/reducing a sentence. It doesn't really matter that you killed a person because of "said" reason. It's no better/worse than killing them for the kind of shampoo they use. You commited a crime, based on a belief, not a direct threat to yourself.

This raises a more interesting question, and that is whether a homicide is justified if it is not done in self defence. Like, killing one person in order to save someone else's life.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 This raises a more interesting question, and that is whether a homicide is justified if it is not done in self defence. Like, killing one person in order to save someone else's life.

It's a very difficult question to answer. While I can definitely think of times where I believe homicide is justifiable in order to protect the "greater good," I cannot, so far, constuct a set of criteria which one could use to determine if a particular homicide is justifiable (in my opinion) or not. If I can come up with a set of criteria i feel comfortable defending, I will post it.

quote:

Florida to Execute Remorseless Anti-Abortion Killer Wed September 3, 2003 10:23 AM ET By Broward Liston STARKE, Fla. (Reuters) - Paul Hill, the unrepentant anti-abortion activist who murdered a doctor and bodyguard at a Florida abortion clinic, was scheduled to die by chemical injection on Wednesday in an execution he said would make him a martyr. Hill, on Florida's death row for nearly nine years for the shotgun slayings of Dr. John Britton, 69, and his bodyguard, James Barrett, 74, at the Ladies Center in Pensacola, Florida, on July 29, 1994, said in a jailhouse interview on the eve of execution he had no regrets and no remorse for the killings. "I believe the state, by executing me, will be making me a martyr," said Hill, a defrocked Presbyterian minister who would be the first killer of a doctor who provided abortions to be executed in the United States. Abortion rights activists, fearing his execution will spur a wave of reprisal violence by fringe elements of the anti-abortion movement, have warned abortion providers to step up security at clinics. Violent attacks at abortion clinics, from bombings to invasions to snipers, have subsided in the last five years. Hill, 49, was scheduled to have final visits with his wife, son, sisters and parents before being taken to the death chamber at Florida State Prison for the scheduled 6 p.m. EDT execution. "I think I have some natural apprehension, but no, I'm not afraid," Hill told reporters on Tuesday. Anti-death penalty campaigners have asked Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to halt the execution, saying Hill is using it to promote a political cause. But Hill has dropped all appeals and no last-minute reprieve is expected. "Jeb Bush would not give a microphone to Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, but he gave a microphone to Paul Hill," said Abe Bonowitz, director of Floridians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. "He's allowing the death penalty process to advance a political agenda." Mainstream anti-abortion groups say Hill represents a narrow fringe even within the extremes of the anti-abortion movement. He was an early advocate of what he calls the "justifiable homicide" of abortion providers.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider

hehe, well no he's going to be "justifiably killed" by the state

Heard on the radio on the way home that the execution was done.


MrS

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.