[QUOTE=brunoparga;90010] I think this definition addresses questions which could arise, like cancer and HeLa (those cells could never become an adult person).[/QUOTE]

It is far from clear to me that any cell of human origin, including HeLa cells, could [i]never[/i] become an adult person.

I concede that the technology required is not yet available, but it is far from obvious that it is impossible even in principle.

Come to that, it's not even clear that a human cell is necessary. Here the technology is even more primitive. Nonetheless, a fully functioning organism (a smallpox virus) has already been sucessfully built from a library of nucleotides.


Paul

[QUOTE=Prime95;89885]You and everyone else reading this thread believes in the death penalty.

Scenario: A home invader breaks into your home and is about to plunge a knife into your wife. Fortunately you heard the commotion and enter the room with a gun. In that moment, you believe in the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

Well i don't believe in the death penalty (also not in having guns at home, but different discussion). In the above situation i would shoot him in the leg/arms (provided that i would be able to handle a gun, and would not accidently shoot my wife between the eyes). Just to disable his actions, not to kill him. Killing him would not solve anything, would only bring sadness to lots of lifes. His family, but also my own family that i just can rob people of their lives (no matter what the reason for it is).

But that is just my view of the situation. Everyone is entitled to his/her own view ;)

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;89930]Well, the executioner is the one who acts on the punishment. It's not murder to kill a murderer. Killing in a war is not murder. A policeman can only kill a person who can't be stopped any other way during a criminal situation. I think you know these things already. Murder requires intent to commit the actual crime. The others don't meet that qualification. Personally, right now, I don't know which country you mean specifically.[/QUOTE]
I also didn't speak about murder, but about killing an other human being. The end result is the same, the intention also, to exterminate the other person (wether it is for work/pleasure/panic/something else)

and about the country (The Netherlands):
"A far-reaching abortion law was passed in 1981 that allowed abortion on demand at any point between conception and viability, subject to counseling and a five-day waiting period."

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90034]Statistics from countries where it has been abolished or reintroduced do not show a difference in the crime rate of those crimes that can be punished that way. This means it is not a deterrent. It is only vengeance.[/quote]

I agree it is most likely not a deterrent, but it is not about vengence. Revenge is rooted in a resentful or vindictive spirit. It is about cold and calculated justice - determining the appropriate penalties for criminal behavior. Our country has determined that certain heinous crimes deserve the ultimate penalty.

[quote]Some countries are still a bit more in the past than others:[/quote]

Hopefully this was unintentional or I am reading more into this statement than was intended, but this reads as somewhat condescending -- if a country doesn't agree with your views they are backward and unenlightened. Who's to say that this isn't a case where some countries have gone too far in coddling society's worst offenders. Or maybe Brazil should find your country a bit backward for handing out life sentences when 30 years is more than sufficient.

[quote]societies where everyone can have a weapon, where you can shoot a trespasser... This means that those societies don’t believe in their capacity to insure some of the most basic human rights: the right to live a peaceful life.[/QUOTE]

Oh boy, another hot-button issue - gun control!?

How can a government insure my right to a peaceful life without providing a bodyguard 24/7??

If society lets me carry a weapon, that in no way interferes with anyone else's right to live a peaceful life.

If society lets me shoot a trespasser, that in no way interferes with anyone else's right to live a peaceful life - unless you consider trespassing a basic human right.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90071]How can a government insure my right to a peaceful life without providing a bodyguard 24/7??[Quote]
It seems to be working in Canada, most of European countries, Japan, New Zealand... There is violent crime in these countries, but the problem is nothing compared to the USA. This means that some societies (not governements) can indeed do better than others.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90071]If society lets me carry a weapon, that in no way interferes with anyone else's right to live a peaceful life.[/QUOTE]
Except when you or some school kids use those weapons. Carrying a weapon without ever using it would indeed never interfere with anyone esle's right to live.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90071]If society lets me shoot a trespasser, that in no way interferes with anyone else's right to live a peaceful life - unless you consider trespassing a basic human right.[/QUOTE]
So just sitting on someone’s law justifies a death-sentence? One can even be trespassing without knowing it, it happened to me quite often while walking in the countryside: some paths are private without any sign saying so.

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90104]It seems to be working in Canada, most of European countries, Japan, New Zealand... There is violent crime in these countries, but the problem is nothing compared to the USA. This means that some societies (not governements) can indeed do better than others.[/quote]

I'll concede the point that the U.S. has more violent crime than many other countries. However, let's avoid the whole debate as to the cause. Neither side can win that argument as the number of different causes is enormous and the amount attributed to any one cause is unprovable. I will also concede that if guns were banned, eventually there would be far fewer gun related deaths in the U.S.

Interestingly though, your answer proves my point. Neither government or society can provide an individual with complete protection. Consequently, U.S. society has decided that to let the individual better protect himself and his family, he may own a gun. Perhaps we are willing to pay the price of having more violent crimes if it allows us more individual freedoms.

Hopefully you respect our decision even though you presumably do not agree with it.

[quote]So just sitting on someone’s law (land?) justifies a death-sentence? One can even be trespassing without knowing it, it happened to me quite often while walking in the countryside: some paths are private without any sign saying so.[/QUOTE]

With the privilege of gun ownership comes the responsibility of careful and safe usage. This includes knowing how to use the gun, when you can use the gun, and how to safely store the gun.

BTW, AFAIK, it is illegal to shoot someone for mere trespassing on your land - even if you have a well posted property. Should you trespass into someone's house, you are running a big risk. In some states you can now be legally shot at (self defense issues). In others, the gun owner must give you a chance to surrender or flee before shooting, but the D.A. might elect not to prosecute. There are 50 state laws on the subject so don't take the above as gospel. In fact Florida just updated its law last year giving more protection to the gun owner and less to the criminal.

First of all, thanks to Uncwilly and xilman for their comments on my definition proposal. It surely gives a lot to think about.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90109]Perhaps we are willing to pay the price of having more violent crimes if [B]it allows us more individual freedoms[/B].
[/QUOTE]

Does it? Do US citizens have more individual freedoms? I mean, this is certainly true when compared with many underdeveloped countries. But it seems to me that countries like the Netherlands and Denmark have an even larger degree of freedom. Or Canada. Like, being able to marry the love of your life no matter if it's the same sex as you or the opposite sex is a BIG freedom almost all US citizens lack.

[QUOTE=Prime95;90071]
Who's to say that this isn't a case where some countries have gone too far in coddling society's worst offenders.
[/QUOTE]

Those societies themselves? Concepts like inherent, inalienable human rights (for which the US talks so loud and does so... Abu Ghraib)?

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90034]At one time the United-Kingdom had such policy against suspected IRA members, the infamous "shoot to kill" policy. [/QUOTE]

Now the UK has stopped shooting to kill Irishmen and turned their guns to Brazilians-who-look-like-those-goddamn-Al-Qaeda-terrorists. There was this immigrant, his first name was Jean Charles, I think the last name was Menezes, google that and you'll see the London police followed him to the subway train and then, without any reasonable police procedure, shot the unarmed, completely harmless man to death. It was not a single shot in the leg to stop him from wrongdoing (he was doing nothing wrong!); they kept shooting for half a minute. And the reaction from British officials, at least the first one, was to say those policemen were heroes.

Bruno

PS: Uncwilly, I'm not a law expert, but you made several questions so I'll try to minimally answer them. AFAIK, no-one can get arrested (at least) here in Brazil for breaking laws other than criminal laws. There are no such laws at the local or state level, only federal laws. They're enforced by state civil and military police forces, offenders get tried by (I think) state judges and most usually serve time at state facilities. The state secretariats responsible for police stations, which very often hold a large proportion of that state's detainees, and for the prisons themselves, are different ones and not always cooperate with each other.

To further complicate things, violent police officers very often get elected as state or federal representatives, so the struggle for better, more efficient laws and prisons and everything gets harder.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90119]Does it? Do US citizens have more individual freedoms? I mean, this is certainly true when compared with many underdeveloped countries. But it seems to me that countries like the Netherlands and Denmark have an even larger degree of freedom. Or Canada. Like, being able to marry the love of your life no matter if it's the same sex as you or the opposite sex is a BIG freedom almost all US citizens lack.[/quote]

I only meant U.S. citizens have one more freedom by allowing gun ownership as opposed to banning ownership. Although not relevant to this particular thread, I support increasing U.S. individual freedoms including gay marriage, drug legalization, and many others.

[quote]Who's to say that this isn't a case where some countries have gone too far in coddling society's worst offenders....Those societies themselves? [/quote]

I've no problem with EU countries and Brazil electing not to implement the death penalty. Countries have the right to choose the penal code they are most comfortable with. I'm only ask for the same consideration without being condescendingly called backwards.

[quote]Concepts like inherent, inalienable human rights?[/quote]

As defined by Europe? Amnesty International?

Consensus is that right-to-life is an inalienable human right. There is no consensus on whether this is one of the rights you can lose after committing a crime. After all, by my count, there are 17 countries on the U.N Human Rights Council that still permit the death penalty.

[QUOTE=brunoparga;90010]Do you believe in human rights, Jwb52z?

I repeat, do you believe in human rights? I might infer from your post that you don't. (not that that would surprise me in today's world).[/QUOTE]Under US law, you don't have all the same rights as a person who never committed a crime after you have become a criminal. For example, certain kinds of crimes make it illegal from that point on for a criminal to vote. Human rights are for the law abiding, if you ask me. Those who violate the law deserve to have a fitting punishment. I think the only fitting punishment for murder is that you have forfeited your life. Personally, I think, as one person mentioned about having the same jail sentence for every crime, I find that idiotic, honestly. Brazil has evidently forgotten about letting the punishment fit the crime.

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90034]Some countries are still a bit more in the past than others: societies where everyone can have a weapon, where you can shoot a trespasser... This means that those societies don’t believe in their capacity to insure some of the most basic human rights: the right to live a peaceful life.[/QUOTE]So, just to "insure......human rights" we have to never have on-hand protection and allow strangers on our property without having the right and ability to make them leave? How does that even begin to be ok?

[QUOTE=BotXXX;90054]Well i don't believe in the death penalty (also not in having guns at home, but different discussion). In the above situation i would shoot him in the leg/arms (provided that i would be able to handle a gun, and would not accidently shoot my wife between the eyes). Just to disable his actions, not to kill him. Killing him would not solve anything, would only bring sadness to lots of lifes. His family, but also my own family that i just can rob people of their lives (no matter what the reason for it is).

But that is just my view of the situation. Everyone is entitled to his/her own view ;)[/QUOTE]As sad as it would be for his family, I think most people would logically be not too upset if such a monster of a being were dead after they discovered the evil things that the person is capable of now. As a famous forensic anthropologist once said, "There are some people who just don't belong in this world".

[QUOTE=Jacob Visser;90104][QUOTE=Prime95;90071]Except when you or some school kids use those weapons. Carrying a weapon without ever using it would indeed never interfere with anyone esle's right to live.

So just sitting on someone’s law justifies a death-sentence? One can even be trespassing without knowing it, it happened to me quite often while walking in the countryside: some paths are private without any sign saying so.[/QUOTE]Ok, as to your first paragraph here, using a weapon to protect yourself is not the same as committing a violent crime as it would be in a school shooting where some teenager goes nuts or a violent person just enters a school and holds it hostage. As to your second paragraph, if a person on your property has no business being there and refuses to leave after being told they shouldn't be there, you have a right to try to make them leave, and if they won't leave by manual force or verbal request, yes, I say get rid of them the sure way. Any person who won't leave by a peaceful or manual manner is surely not the kind of person who is "innocently" there.