Merriam Webster says: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.

Until such time that you are put on trial for it, and found that what you did had extenuating circumstances, unless you're basically a soldier and (once in a while) a police officer, you have murdered someone.  It may be found later that you were justified...that it was in self-defense, or that it was an accident or something like that...

But all the time you hear now of cases being brough forth that could be called accidental or unintentional but are going to be tried as a murder...there really is no black and white.  In fact, depending on IF you were black or white might make all the difference between murder and manslaughter...or justifiable homicide (funny that there really is justifiable homicide, eh?)

Think of all the women who were abused by their husbands and killed them.  These women were beaten, psychologically abused, raped, humiliated, etc et al, and for decades it was always murder...there was never a justifiable wife killing a husband (much as there was no justifiable blacks killing whites for the longest time)...but then people started questioning this.  Now, when we look back, is it possible that they might have had some reason for what they did?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm all for the death penalty...I'm for it for murder, but I have issues with how they're using murder and defining it whenever they feel like it...I'm for it for rapists that are brutal and/or habitual...and some other brutal and violent types that can never be productive members of society.

But you'd better have incontrovertible proof. 

If you have it...that they intentionally killed someone for selfish reasons...that they raped someone...that their pattern of behavior shows that they'll never be worth the air that they breathe...put 'em down.  Don't regret it...they're dangerous animals.

And I'm pro-choice.  And I'm pro-war...as long as you know what you're doing (sadly, King George II appears not to).  The more humans removed from the Earth, the better.

Like Tosk said, murder is murder, which seems to have been lost somewhere down the road... especially nowadays, where people can get off for what they did by using some crazy card (or in some cases, even the *shock* race card) and were not responsible for their actions.. Well yeah! Of course he/she is crazy! They killed someone!

I don't think I agree or understand what you mean by that.

I hope it didn't come across that I was trying to put words in your mouth, I just truly don't understand what you meant.  You said that imprisoning people and the death penalty was inane or insignificant.  I am curious what alternatives you would offer... honestly, I'm not trying to play any tricks here . 

We punish people so that there is justice.  If there was no justice, then people who are more prone to illegal activity would do it more.  I don't pay my taxes because I feel like I should, I pay them because I know if I didn't, I'd eventually be "punished." 

The obvious reason we want to separate murderers from the general population, especially serial ones, is because, well, we don't trust them.  As to producing more criminals than reforming, I agree to an extent.  There are some crimes which shouldn't be crimes or at least the punishments are too severe.  Someone who gets thrown in the slammer for 5 years for possession of some illegal substance may come out more of a criminal than when he went in.  That said, someone who already is involved in a lot of criminal activity, is by definition already a criminal.  If you're involved in theft, for example, you have to be stopped, and well punished.  If you weren't, crime would go up because more criminals would see that they could get away with it. 

In the case of murder, it is even more extreme.  The more severe the punishment, the more that society shows how serious it holds that crime.  Murder is the most extreme crime one can commit because the person to whom the crime was commited against cannot be healed or recover from the damage done.  Therefore the most extreme punishment is to take the life of that person.  I'm not saying that all murders should be given the death penalty but a person who maliciously takes the life of someone deserves to die. 

Please tell me .

Now you'll have to excuse me, ST: TNG is on and I have to run...

Nerd (ever heard of a DVR )

Well it's not Star Trek but I liked the possiblity of "death of personality" in Babylon 5...it had its best examination in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_Through_Gethsemane

I suppose we could do forced labor camps like the Soviets used to, instead.  Not only could we put murderers and rapists in there, we could send political prisoners...dissenters and poets and...oh wait...um.  Either way, forced labor camps provide us with cheap raw materials and gets the offenders out of the way...and they'll likely die, too...so it's like a Slow Death Sentence.

We could use them to clean up asbestos...and brownfields...and make them work on oil rigs and stuff.  Yeah...

What I'm saying is that yes, prison is somewhat wasteful but it's about the most humane thing you can do.  Not everyone is going to get over being evil with some Prozac and therapy.  So if you don't want them in prison, and you don't want them around to prey on people...a bullet does the trick.

Edit: added: What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Ever see what happens when a trial gets to the media?  Ask anyone who's been accused of, then exonerated of, child molesting.  O.J. was found not guilty...but everyone still thought he was.  Innocent until proven guilty is a fine ideal and something we should strive for, but sadly doesn't work that way often.

Not Guilty by reason of Necessity?  WOOT, sign me up...there's a lot of people that I feel is necessary to die for me to be happy in life.