4 ms·

> Couldn't the argument be made that the parents, in effect, did it to their own child No, it couldn't. The person responsible for killing the child is the per

> Couldn't the argument be made that the parents, in effect, did it to their own child No, it couldn't. The person responsible for killing the child is the person that enforces the law and the person that created the law.

grecy 11y ago
Iteresting. It follows then the person that kills a death row inmate is responsible for their death, not the inmate for committing a crime in the first place.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- moistgorilla 11y ago
  When a death row inmate is killed the executioner is without doubt responsible for the death. Just like the judge that sentenced him is responsible. Now whether they were justified or not is a different question (which many would argue there is never good enough justification for the death penalty) Anyway, it's not interesting, the only thing the parents are responsible for is having a second child and breaking the law. What people do to enforce the law is their responsibility not the responsibility of the parents that broke it, the same applies for the murderer on death row. Just because something is legal doesn't absolve you of responsibility. The same way soldiers "just following orders" are responsible for the actions they commit at the behest of their superiors. Both the superiors and the soldiers are responsible
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    If you don't consider any punishment the responsibility of a criminal, then I think you're using a different definition of 'responsible' than most people, and this might actually be a semantic argument rather than anything meaningful.
    - moistgorilla 11y ago
      > responsible : having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role. The criminal is only responsible for breaking the law, the only thing he had control over before he was caught (assuming he was caught for the sake of argument). We as society are responsible for dealing out the punishment. How could the criminal be responsible for the punishment when he is not the one inflicting it on him/herself. edit: To make my argument slightly easier to understand I'm going to give an extreme example Let's say it's illegal to be a certain religion. Is it the insert religion here person's responsibility that he is punished and sent to a death camp?
      - Dylan16807 11y ago
        I think most people would say that if the punishment is justified then the responsibility is transitive.
        MacsHeadroom 11y ago
        The punishment being justified depends entirely on whether or not the law itself is just (e.g. capital punishment is largely considered to be a legal injustice). Whether or not responsibility is transitive a separate, but important, matter. As it turns out, responsibility for statutory laws is only transitive when applied to a party to the statute (e.g. a lawmaker or the enforcer). A thief is responsible for restitution because depriving someone of their property is violation of natural law. A party who breaks a contract is responsible for fulfilling the terms they agreed to, because they made that agreement. A thief, or a party who breaks a contract, is not responsible for a _statutory law_ enforced against them (unless they are a law maker or the law enforcer). The creators and enforcers of the statue are responsible for creating it and enforcing it. They are responsible for its outcome, whether that is a dead murderer or a dead baby.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        And if the contract is "you can live and work here if you don't have a baby"? Let's say a hypothetical government doesn't touch the woman, but they insist the woman do something to avoid raising too many children.
- task_queue 11y ago
  Yes, they are responsible for killing them. It's a conscience decision an executioner makes to kill those the state deems worthy of execution.
- fineman 11y ago
  Right, because if nobody killed the inmate they'd still be alive. Your "need" to kill them because they crossed some line is your need, and you're the killer. (For better or worse...)
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    You have to punish the defectors if you want to have a stable society. If you set up a law that says "X is punishable by death" and someone does X, then you have to deliver death to that person, or else the law loses all its coordinating power. If the law itself is not just, then you're responsible for unnecessary deaths, but a person committing X in full knowledge of the consequences is responsible for their own death. It's really similar to jumping out of the 10th floor window. It's the dv/dt that actually kills you, but it's you who is responsible for your own death.
    - fineman 11y ago
      Sure, you just can't sugar-coat it. You're deciding to kill someone for that goal.

grecy 11y ago

Iteresting. It follows then the person that kills a death row inmate is responsible for their death, not the inmate for committing a crime in the first place.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
moistgorilla 11y ago
When a death row inmate is killed the executioner is without doubt responsible for the death. Just like the judge that sentenced him is responsible. Now whether they were justified or not is a different question (which many would argue there is never good enough justification for the death penalty) Anyway, it's not interesting, the only thing the parents are responsible for is having a second child and breaking the law. What people do to enforce the law is their responsibility not the responsibility of the parents that broke it, the same applies for the murderer on death row. Just because something is legal doesn't absolve you of responsibility. The same way soldiers "just following orders" are responsible for the actions they commit at the behest of their superiors. Both the superiors and the soldiers are responsible
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  If you don't consider any punishment the responsibility of a criminal, then I think you're using a different definition of 'responsible' than most people, and this might actually be a semantic argument rather than anything meaningful.
  - moistgorilla 11y ago
    > responsible : having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role. The criminal is only responsible for breaking the law, the only thing he had control over before he was caught (assuming he was caught for the sake of argument). We as society are responsible for dealing out the punishment. How could the criminal be responsible for the punishment when he is not the one inflicting it on him/herself. edit: To make my argument slightly easier to understand I'm going to give an extreme example Let's say it's illegal to be a certain religion. Is it the insert religion here person's responsibility that he is punished and sent to a death camp?
    - Dylan16807 11y ago
      I think most people would say that if the punishment is justified then the responsibility is transitive.
      - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
        The punishment being justified depends entirely on whether or not the law itself is just (e.g. capital punishment is largely considered to be a legal injustice). Whether or not responsibility is transitive a separate, but important, matter. As it turns out, responsibility for statutory laws is only transitive when applied to a party to the statute (e.g. a lawmaker or the enforcer). A thief is responsible for restitution because depriving someone of their property is violation of natural law. A party who breaks a contract is responsible for fulfilling the terms they agreed to, because they made that agreement. A thief, or a party who breaks a contract, is not responsible for a _statutory law_ enforced against them (unless they are a law maker or the law enforcer). The creators and enforcers of the statue are responsible for creating it and enforcing it. They are responsible for its outcome, whether that is a dead murderer or a dead baby.
        Dylan16807 11y ago
        And if the contract is "you can live and work here if you don't have a baby"? Let's say a hypothetical government doesn't touch the woman, but they insist the woman do something to avoid raising too many children.
task_queue 11y ago
Yes, they are responsible for killing them. It's a conscience decision an executioner makes to kill those the state deems worthy of execution.
fineman 11y ago
Right, because if nobody killed the inmate they'd still be alive. Your "need" to kill them because they crossed some line is your need, and you're the killer. (For better or worse...)
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You have to punish the defectors if you want to have a stable society. If you set up a law that says "X is punishable by death" and someone does X, then you have to deliver death to that person, or else the law loses all its coordinating power. If the law itself is not just, then you're responsible for unnecessary deaths, but a person committing X in full knowledge of the consequences is responsible for their own death. It's really similar to jumping out of the 10th floor window. It's the dv/dt that actually kills you, but it's you who is responsible for your own death.
  - fineman 11y ago
    Sure, you just can't sugar-coat it. You're deciding to kill someone for that goal.