The law is in place to protect both the victim and the criminal.
Yes
Side Score: 6
|
 |
No
Side Score: 6
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
0
points
|
1
point
Commiting suicide isn't always a harm to a person, euthanaisia, which is also illegal in some countries benefits the individual. An example, very technically it isn't illegal in Canada, but the fact that the legal implications are a hindrance to the victim and the criminal (obviously the same person) shows that the law is encouraging pain and suffering.. not protection from oneself. Looking at the larger picture.. a freedom, or fine is taken away from a criminal not for the protection of themselves, its done so they don't do it again. Its supposed to be there to deter the criminal from doing it again..because its a nusance to the victim or future victims. A murderer is going to be locked away to protect innocent people, not because the legal system takes a personal interrest in the murderers wellbeing. Side: No
“The law is in place to protect both the victim and the criminal.” The law protects them from whom or what? Please explain by example. Otherwise I will simply argue that a law that protects both the victim and criminal can only protect the criminal. Furthermore, it is the criminal who is the victim who is protected. For it is obvious the law does not protect an innocent person from becoming a victim of a criminal. Side: No
1
point
The law is in place for three reasons: 1. To protect the victim. 2. To protect society. 3. To protect the criminal - even if only from himself. An even greater man told me that. He divided the law into three categories - in case you are a Christian, I shall include the first category. If you do not believe in religion, simply disregard the first category: 1. That which is spiritually offensive. 2. That which is morally offensive. 3. That which is physically offensive. That which is spiritually offensive (remember, disregard this section if you are an atheist) What does it mean? It means that what God (of any religion, or any religious text) says in offensive is offensive. Such things include necrophilia and murder. That which is morally offensive What causes your conscience to 'act up' on you? If you lie, does your conscience - your guilt - bother you? How about stealing? If you stole a purse, would you not feel guilty? That which is physically offensive Pretty much something that harms the body or society in general in a physical, not a mental, sense. Abuse, murder, rape, etc. are all prime examples of things which are physically offensive. Each of those three categories mix with each other. I will give you an example: Bestiality is offensive on all three grounds: It is morally, physically, and spiritually offensive. Spiritually because many religions are against it (depending on religion, of course, this section may be inaccurate); physically because it can cause great damage to both the bestialist and to society as a whole. It could have been responsible for AIDS; to legalize zoophilia would be to cause a degradation in the morals of our society. Here comes the slippery slope. Consider this sequence of events: 1. Rise of sexual freedom. 2. Legalize homosexuality (physically and, to many, morally offensive) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 3. Legalize 'street drugs'. After all, people can do to their own bodies whatever they want, right? (Wrong!) Seeing as how a corpse is only an inanimate object, and how the necrophile has the right to harm his body however he pleases, there is not reason for necrophilia to remain illegal. Thus: 4. Legalize necrophilia. Whatever you may say about the slippery slope being fallacious, that does not make my Sequence of Events any less probable. Side: yes
How does homosexuality fall into the category of physically offensive? It has nothing in common with the examples you gave of physically offensive crimes. One could say that we generally consider a corpse to be property; the property of the person it used to be. There is a regulated system in place to ensure that the corpse is used or disposed of in the manner dictated by the deceased, if at all possible. If that manner does not include necrophilia, then the necrophile is misusing someone else's property, to put it roughly. Homosexuality does not fit that definition, thus it does not follow that legalizing homosexuality will lead to legalizing necrophilia. Side: yes
|
