Dexter: A Man Of The People And/Or Of Himself

Use this forum to have philosophical discussions about aesthetics and art. What is art? What is beauty? What makes art good? You can also use this forum to discuss philosophy in the arts, namely to discuss the philosophical points in any particular movie, TV show, book or story.
User avatar
Scott
Site Admin
Posts: 4197
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Diogenes the Cynic
Contact:

Post by Scott » December 4th, 2009, 6:09 pm

Homicidal Pacifist wrote:Should it be a law against an action (killing), a law against killing certain victims (the innocents), or circumstantial (premeditated murder, self-defense/justifiable homicide, accidental/manslaughter) and where do we draw the line?
In any formal jurisdiction I know in the world such as the United States, one cannot be convicted of any crime on the basis of the action alone (actus reus). The prosecution must also prove the mens rea, i.e. the guilty mind/intention. In other words, crimes are defined not only by the action (e.g. pulling the trigger on a gun which causes a bullet to shoot out into someone's head) but also by the intention (choosing to do it knowing it will kill the person because you want them dead). Different intentions can mean it's different crime even if the actus reus is the same (e.g. pulling the trigger). If there is no intention at all to commit a crime, then there is no crime.

In short, you question doesn't make sense because intention is inherently part of what makes a crime a crime and determines which crime it is.
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

Check it out: Abortion - Not as diametrically divisive as often thought?

User avatar
Homicidal Pacifist
Posts: 569
Joined: July 19th, 2009, 2:42 am
Location: Your mom's house. Ha.

.

Post by Homicidal Pacifist » December 7th, 2009, 3:17 am

Thank you Scott. That helps.
"There is one thing stronger than all the armies of the world,
and that is an idea whose time has come."

User avatar
Ambauer
Posts: 65
Joined: October 6th, 2015, 9:59 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Cosmo the Hedonist

Re: .

Post by Ambauer » October 9th, 2015, 1:34 pm

Homicidal Pacifist wrote: We only have to protect the law of the land if the law is just.
I understand that you are concerned that capital punishment is unjust. However, I am concerned that you are advocating for a ghastly revision of the law. I think that we have laws against vigilante crime because if we say that vigilantes can "fill in the cracks of the criminal system", we leave the law up to their subjective interpretation. What if they say people who cut others off on the high way deserve to die? I think it is dangerous to consider allowing vigilantes to have their way in enforcing the law.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 2919
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: .

Post by LuckyR » November 7th, 2015, 5:17 am

Ambauer wrote:
Homicidal Pacifist wrote: We only have to protect the law of the land if the law is just.
I understand that you are concerned that capital punishment is unjust. However, I am concerned that you are advocating for a ghastly revision of the law. I think that we have laws against vigilante crime because if we say that vigilantes can "fill in the cracks of the criminal system", we leave the law up to their subjective interpretation. What if they say people who cut others off on the high way deserve to die? I think it is dangerous to consider allowing vigilantes to have their way in enforcing the law.
You tangentially bring up a good point, namely that there is a big difference between the determination of guilt and sentancing.

In the Dexter example, what if the courts find him guilty of murder and sentance him to 6 months?
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Lucylu
Moderator
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Dexter: A Man Of The People And/Or Of Himself

Post by Lucylu » November 15th, 2015, 7:03 pm

Homicidal Pacifist wrote:
In a nutshell, should murder only be punishable if the victims were innocents?
In an ideal world, Dexter would be a 'good' murderer and would be shown leniency in court. I'm afraid, however, that this would start a very dangerous precedent as then anyone would feel free to go out and kill someone they thought was a paedophile or a rapist or simply a bad person. It would become a huge grey area very quickly, as some people would mistakenly kill an innocent who they thought was a sociopath, about to murder etc. It is better to draw a clear line that intentional and premeditated murder is never allowed.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell

Post Reply