The Ultimate Act Of Theft?

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries. Murder is generally distinguished from other forms of homicide by the elements of malice aforethought and the lack of lawful justification. All jurisdictions, ancient and modern, consider it a most serious crime and therefore impose severe penalty on its commission.

source

I have always thought of murder as the ultimate act of theft.

When a murderer kills another person, they are taking away not just their life, but their (designated?) time on earth.

They are taking away all that person was, is or could be.

They are potentially robbing the world of an achievement or accomplishment of the person killed.

They are stealing from the victims family the pleasure, learning and support that the victim may have offered throughout their natural life.

It is the ultimate act of theft to end a persons (known) existance and to place on the victims friends and family the sorrow, guilt, rage and desire for vengeance that stops them from leading a life they would otherwise have led from that point on.

Ok fair point.
And so if you go and murder that murderer?
Doesn't that make you also, a murderer?
Doesn't that make you become, what you were opposing in the first place?

reply to post by budski


An interesting question. I agree that it certainly is up there. The damage that it does to so many people is hard to measure. Friends and family all live with the pain forever.

I think that sexual abuse of a child could be right up there with it. You rob that child of their innocence. You rob them of ever living a normal life or ever having a normal relationship. They live with that pain forever. With murder, at least the victim is no longer in pain. With child molestation it is something that really can go on for a lifetime.

reply to post by Karlhungis


The abuse angle is one that I considered carefully before posting this, and in reply, I would argue that a murder victim never has the opportunity to overcome what has happened to them.

One of the reasons we have counsellors and victim support for abuse victims is to help overcome the trauma and try to help the victim live as normal a life as possible.
There are plenty of abuse victims who have gone on to live their lives in a normal manner and have contributed greatly to society and to their loved ones.

A murder victim has no such opportunity.

reply to post by budski


Many abuse victims end up killing themselves anyways, so it could be argued that they find death a better alternative than living with the pain.


We are splitting hairs though. Both are horrible acts.

reply to post by Interestinggg


This may seem a bit like a round about way of answering - if someone steals from a shop, do law enforcement officers go and steal some stuff from the perps house as a way of getting revenge?

I have said it before, but I think the life of a human being is the most common sacred value among every culture. And I think to rob someone of their time, consciousness, virginity, dignity , or their being, is absolutely worse than all the other thefts of material values on this planet.

Budski, I think you may have opened a can of worms. This could bring on a debate of weather capital punishment is fair and proper. I have always been on the fence about state executions.

I do believe, as you, that taking a life is the ultimate crime. Do we have the right to then take the life of the murderer?

If a friend or loved one of mine was murdered I would immediately want to do great, long, painful suffering to that murderer. Sometimes I feel the death penalty is too easy. It puts the criminal out of their misery while the family lives with it until their own death.

Our criminal justice system has defined murder very well. The punishment differs in each state.

I wish I could find peace with taking another's life even if they had taken a life. As a christian I believe it is not our right to steal the life of another. When someone unjustly kills does that belief still apply? I don't know and it eats at my soul.

One thing which I have never been able to understand is that in many cases the murder of a child gives the murderer a shorter sentence than if he/she had taken the life of an adult. (At least that has been the case several times here in Scandinavia, especially if a mother or father kills their child as a result of long term abuse or a fit of rage.)

I am absolutely disgusted by this. I can not understand it. To me the murder of a child is in fact much, MUCH worse than the murder of an adult.

First of all, the child is helpless and have no way of defendig itself against a physically strong adult which in many cases also happens to be a parent - the excact same person who's job it is to protect and love the child.
Second, the younger the child is, the more future expected lifetime has been stolen away from it.

If it was up to me, the sentence would be longer the younger the child was.

WHOA Karl and I agree on a point? No way....

Ya so this is what prisons are for. Isolate the person and "try" to rehabilitate him...but then again there is the distinct possibility for the individual to commit the same or similar crime. Which is why I believe prison should be more of a large, open, and walled off partition where the inmates can co-mingle (not the ones that attack other inmates - one strike and in the hole/confinement) and are given things to do like raise their own food and educate each other for the benefit of the criminal society. Ya, some people are multiple murders or are insane/confused to the point that they need to be isolated...but, that is no reason to just up and "avenge" an action of someone in your own society, at least I think so anyways.

In regards to the prison idea, I am tainted with seeing how several European nations have their system set up and with the info I have come across as to how well our (US) system works.

ALSO, hehehe, I have been imprisoned before (25 days, no charge, was in the military - I was on a probation/no use of alcohol watch and refused to get put on narcotics for the chronic pain I am STILL in and I said someting to someone one night when I was, once again, lit up like a Christmas tree and two weeks later got arrested for it...and then released to civilian life to get treatment for my ever so thoughtful condition)...There was a prgram where the guys who were headed for Kansas for further "chill out in the icebox" periods were aloud to go outside of the prison to work on the island cleaning up vegetable debris and stuff - helped with keeping them busy, in shape, and feeling worthwhile. Uhm, I don't know if any of them were convicted of murdering other people (mixed jail, even was a dude from the Coast Guard in it) but all of them were in good spirits all the time that I was there. So, I think the "cage the animals in tight quarters" thing FAILS us massively.

So but my thinking is that murdering a member of our own community is immoral and sets a bad example - no matter what crime was committed (like Karl said about molestors and rapists being one split hair's width away from murderers - I want to see the rape people castrated...but would that actually help? Does it?). I don't agree with war, either, but some people want to do that and we have to do the best we can stop that sort of thing from happening.

reply to post by SolarSeaman




I didn't know that you disagreed with everything else I say. I have seen some of your posts that I agree with. I will try to point them out in the future.

reply to post by dizziedame

That was borderline OT. I didn't see it anywhere that the OP mentioned the death penalty. maybe "severe penalty" but nothing about murdering the murderers.

reply to post by dizziedame


Well, I think that could be viewed as part of it.

I have always thought of the DP as state sponsored murder, and in that sense it is indeed a can of worms.

We already have state sponsored theft where the assets of convicted drug dealers can be seized, but does the DP amount to state sponsored theft as well, if we view murder as the ultimate act of theft?

reply to post by juveous

Uh, excuse me juveous.

I don't know what OT means. Could you spell that out?
I thought it might mean 'out there' but would like clarification so I can continue the discussion.

I am a bit thick headed this time of morning.

Thanks

reply to post by dizziedame


OT = Off Topic would be my guess.

But that would negate a very important area of any discussion of this kind.

For my part, having posted this thread, I welcome any and all idea's to do with the subject of murder being the ultimate act of theft, which IMO would also include state sponsored theft of another persons life i.e. the death penalty, although (again IMO) it shouldn't be the main focus of the discussion

reply to post by budski


Didn't the murderer already "steal" his existence away from his friends and loved ones when he committed the crime since he/she would / should never be looked at the same again? The death penalty wouldn't steal that much more than they had already done to themselves. Whereas, imprisoning them for life would not only steal their life away, it would also steal money from millions of tax payers as well, thereby continuing the theft.

Death penalty is such a touchy issue.

reply to post by Karlhungis


This is something to discuss alongside it - the DP is a very touchy issue, and you're 100% right in your assertion of another kind of theft.

However, if you take the view that the DP debases us as a society, then aren't we in effect all stealing from each other?