I had a strange train of thought today, The Green Mile - the guys on death row, the person who pushes the button or whatever which kills the guy on death row.... is he/she a murderer?
Why is this form of murder legal?
If this is acceptable why is euthanasia seen in a different light if the person has chosen death?
If it is assisted, isn't it murder?
If a person has chosen to die by assisted euthanasia are they commiting suicide or a party to murder, thereby making them an acomplice to murder?

It reminds me of the guy who shot his father who had been beating his mother and son for years. The father loaded the gun to threaten the son who believed the gun empty, took the gun, missed his father, the bullet went through the window and hit his mother who had jumped off the roof.
Murder, manslaughter or suicide?

You mean this story....

'In the city of Los Angeles on March 23, 1958. The coroner ruled that the unsuccessful suicide had suddenly become a succesful homicide. To explain: The suicide was confirmed by a note, left in the breast pocket of Sydney Barringer. At the same time young Sydney stood on the ledge of this nine story building, an argument swelled three stories below. The neighbors heard, as they usually did, the arguing of the tenants and it was not uncommon for them to threaten each other with a shotgun, or one of the many handguns kept in the house. And when the shotgun accidentaly went off, Sydney just happend to pass. Added to this, the two tenants turned out to be: Fay and Arthur Barringer. Sydney's mother and Sydney's father. When confronted with the charge, which took some figuring out for the officers on the scene of the crime, Fay Barringer swore that she did not know that the gun was loaded. A young boy who lived in the building, sometimes a vistor and friend to Sydney Barringer said that he had seen, six days prior the loading of the shotgun. It seems that the arguing and the fighting and all of the violence was far too much for Sydney Barringer and knowing his mother and father's tendency to fight, he decided to do something. Sydney Barringer jumps from the ninth floor rooftop. His parents argue three stories below. Her accidental shotgun blast hits Sydney in the stomach as he passes the arguing sixth floor window. He is killed instantly but continues to fall, only to find, three stories below, a safety net installed three days prior for a set of window washers that would have broken his fall and saved his life if not for the hole in his stomach. So Fay Barringer was charged with the murder of her son and Sydney Barringer noted as an accomplice in his own death.'

...?

1. It isn't a real story.
2. Don't take films so seriously.
3. We don't have the death penalty.
4. Yes, It is murder... that's why we don't have it.

Hope this helps! :D

Originally posted by Zebra
I had a strange train of thought today, The Green Mile - the guys on death row, the person who pushes the button or whatever which kills the guy on death row.... is he/she a murderer?

under american law obviously not. duh.


Why is this form of murder legal?

because legality is just something we make up, and that's what the americans happen to have made up.

If this is acceptable why is euthanasia seen in a different light if the person has chosen death?
well it is considerably different, and in fact i see no reason for the two to be linked or the real point of this question.

If it is assisted, isn't it murder?
legally in the uk, yes, morally, make your own mind up.

If a person has chosen to die by assisted euthanasia are they commiting suicide or a party to murder, thereby making them an acomplice to murder?
and accomplice to their own murder, rubbish, they are clearly committing suicide, in exactly the same way as if they commit it using someone elses actions without any complicity (ie jumping infront of a train.


It reminds me of the guy who shot his father who had been beating his mother and son for years. The father loaded the gun to threaten the son who believed the gun empty, took the gun, missed his father, the bullet went through the window and hit his mother who had jumped off the roof.
Murder, manslaughter or suicide?

A good film SHOULD make you think about issues, although I doubt that any valuable insights will come from Bridget Jones's Diary or Love, Actually.

As for the issue at hand - executioners have always been in that grey area of being a killer but not a murderer. Killing is the act, murder is the deinition of a pre-meditated unlawful killing.

And, as has been said, the state creates the law.

It's the same with soldiers - soldiers who kill under the 'rules of war' or the 'rules of engagement' are understood under international law to be conducting themselves legally, even though they are killing people. Once they transgress the rules - by hooting prisoners, etc. - then they become open to prosecution for war crimes.

Joe

I think my post was read incorrectly by some.
I don't take films that seriously but I do appreciate the opportunity of a little mental exercise in thinking about these things.
I didn't think the shooting story was true, it was merely a prompt of consideration.
I don't want a prescriptive answer - I don't think there are any for this as we aren't american and thankfully neither happens in our coountry but it is food for thought and I wondered what everyone elses opinion was.

btw, I never really considered soldiers and killing being an act, again I would hope that euthanasia could be part regarded then, as an act.
Surely with legalised documentation it would not become complex in murder cases?

I don't understand your question or what sort of response you are looking for.

Do you want a legal opinion on the subject as the law stands at the moment in the uk, or do you want a moral opinion on whether suicide and/or euthansia is right or wrong?

Originally posted by JoePritchard
A good film SHOULD make you think about issues, although I doubt that any valuable insights will come from Bridget Jones's Diary or Love, Actually.

As for the issue at hand - executioners have always been in that grey area of being a killer but not a murderer. Killing is the act, murder is the deinition of a pre-meditated unlawful killing.

And, as has been said, the state creates the law.

It's the same with soldiers - soldiers who kill under the 'rules of war' or the 'rules of engagement' are understood under international law to be conducting themselves legally, even though they are killing people. Once they transgress the rules - by hooting prisoners, etc. - then they become open to prosecution for war crimes.

Joe

Hooting them? What about shooting? :lol:

Originally posted by Zebra
I think my post was read incorrectly by some.
I don't take films that seriously but I do appreciate the opportunity of a little mental exercise in thinking about these things.
I didn't think the shooting story was true, it was merely a prompt of consideration.
I don't want a prescriptive answer - I don't think there are any for this as we aren't american and thankfully neither happens in our coountry but it is food for thought and I wondered what everyone elses opinion was.

I didn't read your post incorrectly, and my reply wasn't supposed to be taken seriously... as for a serious answer...

I think there are some very strange hypocrisies around... for instance; I find it strange that many of the people who are opposed to abortion are in favour of the death penalty and the war in Iraq... so on the one hand they are pro-life for a being that has no sense of life, or loss.... but are willing to dispatch people left, right and centre if it furthers a political cause.

On the other hand, many people who are against sending troops to die, or killing criminals, find no problem with terminating a life before it has really begun, or aiding the death of the terminally ill.

From this I can only draw one conclusion... It's all about politics.. or mostly anyway. Some of it is to do with religion as well, of course, but there does seem to be some strange double standards.

If you want my opinion...? (well I'll give it anyway)... I think all life is important. I don't think people should fight unnecessary wars, I think the terminally ill should live for as long as they can before life becomes unbearable, I don't think we should have a death penalty, and I think an abortion is a real shame... you never know, that child could have grown up and discovered a renewable clean power source, or written an amazing book... or whatever.... However, I wouldn't interfere with a person’s right to choose on abortion or euthanasia.

But I’m always wrong anyway... so who knows?!?

Originally posted by Snook
I didn't read your post incorrectly, and my reply wasn't supposed to be taken seriously... as for a serious answer...

I think there are some very strange hypocrisies around... for instance; I find it strange that many of the people who are opposed to abortion are in favour of the death penalty and the war in Iraq... so on the one hand they are pro-life for a being that has no sense of life, or loss.... but are willing to dispatch people left, right and centre if it furthers a political cause.

On the other hand, many people who are against sending troops to die, or killing criminals, find no problem with terminating a life before it has really begun, or aiding the death of the terminally ill.

From this I can only draw one conclusion... It's all about politics.. or mostly anyway. Some of it is to do with religion as well, of course, but there does seem to be some strange double standards.

If you want my opinion...? (well I'll give it anyway)... I think all life is important. I don't think people should fight unnecessary wars, I think the terminally ill should live for as long as they can before life becomes unbearable, I don't think we should have a death penalty, and I think an abortion is a real shame... you never know, that child could have grown up and discovered a renewable clean power source, or written an amazing book... or whatever.... However, I wouldn't interfere with a person’s right to choose on abortion or euthanasia.

But I’m always wrong anyway... so who knows?!?


Attitudes to abortion have always confused me.

It seems that those who support it generally oppose wars and the death penalty and support vivesection (I apologise for the gross generalisation)

Personally I am generally anti capital punishment, anti war, anti vivesection and anti abortion (though not being a woman, and not having any experience of parenthood I don't really feel that my opinion on this subject is that important or based on any real knowledge)

I guess that makes me a little unusual, but I think its the only way I can be consistent.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Personally I am generally anti capital punishment, anti war, anti vivesection and anti abortion (though not being a woman, and not having any experience of parenthood I don't really feel that my opinion on this subject is that important or based on any real knowledge)

I guess that makes me a little unusual, but I think its the only way I can be consistent.

Makes two of us a little unusual then.

I always found it funny that when it was the anniversary of the Roe V's Wade case, the anti-abortion protesters were 90% white men, and the pro-choice protesters were about 70% women of all backgrounds... probably says quite a lot.

I guess my anti abortion position is kind of based on what you could call "respect for life"

BUT, I don't think it should be illegal and I think all women should have the right to choose. I just don't like the idea of people just treating it as a minor thing (not that I think that many women have an abortion without having some mixed feelings)

The problem is that a lot of people take their beliefs and views too far and they can only cope with being 100% against or 100% for things and they want to legislate against everything they don't like. (I'd also include anti fox hunting people in that criticism)

people tend to be either polarised along lines of 'women choice' or 'foetus is alive'.

There's not much middle ground in abort, not abort, if you have an opinion.

I'd fit in with your normal group I suppose. Pro choice, anti-war (although i'll accept that wars are necessary sometimes as we don't live in a perfect world), anti death penalty.

Vivisection is a nasty one. I'd rather we didn't given that it's not nice (same grounds that i'm anti fox hunting). But sometimes the ends justify the means, so if it's for valid and valuable scientific research then with a weight on my conscience i'd say 'do it'
Fox hunting on the other hand has no purpose except enjoyment (there are far more efficient and humane ways of controlling fox populations).

I suppose i've just proved that not everyone is 100% this or that. I can see the justification for war and vivisection even though i'd rather they didn't exist. I can't see a good justification for fox hunting or the death penalty. And in the case of abortion i attribute more rights/value to the women involved as a foetus is just a small collection of cells at that stage, no more independantly alive than my tonsils.
No one would be up in arms if i wanted to have my tonsils removed, would they?

Originally posted by Cyclone

No one would be up in arms if i wanted to have my tonsils removed, would they? [/B]

Well there are plenty of Doctors who would do anything rather than refer you to have your tonsils removed, but I guess thats a slightly different issue - they think it is bad for you in the long run to have them removed.

Opinions change as to what is valid and what isn't. Vivesection is less acceptable now than it was in the past - not because of any change in scientific opinion but just because of the way people are at the time.

I know what I believe in, but I think, fundamentally, that moral absolutes are very rare in this universe.

i agree, morality is just a collective set of principles defined by the society in which we live.

Morally we consider slavery to be wrong.

if you could go back and ask a Roman if it was immoral, wrong or evil they'd say no.

Originally posted by Cyclone
i agree, morality is just a collective set of principles defined by the society in which we live.

Morally we consider slavery to be wrong.

if you could go back and ask a Roman if it was immoral, wrong or evil they'd say no.

Exactly. A parallel in our time is working animals. Who seriously objects to having animals working for us (eg Sheepdogs)

We say, well, the dog gets fed, and has an active life, so who's getting hurt and what's wrong with it?

In a similar way, in Roman times, slaves were not citizens, so the question of whether they should be treated as such was laughable to most Roman Citizens.