Killing people is always wrong | Richard Bourke | TEDxSydney
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 07. 2024
- Lessons learned in America's Death Belt.
Richard Bourke works in Louisiana - America's Deep South - as a Death Row lawyer, defending people who are facing or have already received a death sentence.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
I am a very vocal critic of the death penalty and quite obviously I loved this speech.
I was particularly moved by when you vividly described how choosing love over vengeance gave such emotional peace and healing to that one lady. It eviscerates that common argument that killing the criminal gives victims peace. It may satisfy their short term lust for vengeance but clearly forgiveness and choosing life over death brings them peace.
@Dom private I appreciate your humanism. If you don't mind sharing, have you ever been preyed upon by another human being such that your life--including all your survival resources--was destroyed, except for your remaining physiologically alive? Or have you ever witnessed this happening repeatedly to people you care about?
Many people can't have "peace" when everything they need to survive has been taken from them--especially if they're at an age at which they can't find employment anymore BUT the government can't or won't help. In that case, forgiveness may amount to letting the social predator go free--with others' survival resources--and condemning her/his victims to slow, lonely, painful deaths. Until the justice system can address these sorts of outcomes, many people will continue to seek vengeance.
My understanding is that the American legal system allows for civil suits in the case of personal damages caused by the theft you describe. The crime you describe is somewhat vague, but I assume it refers to a scam or something similar. I don't think anyone advocates against punishment for someone who causes financial ruin, but I have yet to find someone who would argue that such a thief needed to be put to death.
@RM Bee You wrote, "I don't think anyone advocates against punishment for someone who causes financial ruin, but I have yet to find someone who would argue that such a thief needed to be put to death." --> If such people exist, and I'm confident they do, they may not speak up more often out of fear of recrimination in part encouraged by the widespread belief in--and manipulation of people's belief in--moral truths, that certain existing moral-legal principles are absolutely true.
In practice, civil suits often don't work. First, you must find an attorney willing to represent you--and this determination is usually based on an attorney's assessment of how easy it would be to win your case and how much money is likely to be awarded. Second, the other party never even has to show up to court, even when served by a law enforcement officer. Thirdly, the expenses involved in actually being compensated for a civil wrong very often eclipse the magnitude of what was stolen or defrauded so that it's not worth it to many to pursue legal action. Fourthly, the rights of social predators make "proving" wrong-doing, even with legally valid documents, very difficult (hence many attorney's disinclination to represent many victims). Lastly, if someone shirks her/his responsibility to show up to civil court and moves, YOU have to assume all the costs again to pursue to person in another court jurisdiction--IF you can even find where the person has relocated to. And all of this assumes that you, who've just had someone else defraud you of your life savings, have tens-of-thousands of dollars or more available to pay the stratospheric legal fees for a civil case.
Civil court is, unless the person who has hurt you is wealthy and stable, a joke for many who most need legal protection.
On the subject of the death penalty: Do you think that a thief who steals, for instance, a few hundred thousand dollars from someone, deserves to die? It seems to me as though there are more fitting punishments available. Dorm was not advocating for NO punishment, he was advocating against one particular sentence (the death penalty) in favor of more humane ones that still apply appropriate consequences to criminals. I think that this is a reasonable position, especially in the case of something as simple as monetary theft.
On the subject of civil courts: You are correct that civil courts favour the wealthy, especially when it comes to finding a lawyer. This does need to be addressed. On points two and five, I am surprised that people can win civil cases by not showing up to court. Is there precedent for this? It would seem as though someone who didn't show up to the court would have a hard time disproving their liability for damages. On point three, I wonder how it is that the legal fees could eclipse the money lost, if the theft caused such financial ruin as that which you describe (of course, for poorer folks this makes more sense, but why would a con artist steal from a poor person?). On point four, I will remind you that civil cases are not dependent on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (at least in Canada). Rather they are settled by determining the relative liability of all parties for damage caused. If someone steals money, the liability is pretty clear. All that remains is to prove that the defendant was responsible for, or complicit in, the theft.
Given these assertions, what do you think needs to happen if the judicial system is to be improved to help victims of such crippling crime?
@RM Bee
Pardon me if I decline answering your first question as, though you may not have intended it to be a leading question, there really is only one presumably "right" answer. My larger point is that it seems to me equally valid to conclude that such a crime is worthy of the death penalty as concluding against the death penalty. The conclusion will depend on what matters to the one considering the scenario.
"It seems to me as though there are more fitting punishments available. Dorm was not advocating for NO punishment, he was advocating against one particular sentence (the death penalty) in favor of more humane ones that still apply appropriate consequences to criminals." --> The problem I have with this line of reasoning is the inherent assumption that there *is such a thing as* "more humane ones that still applly appropriate consequences." That is a string of opinions grounded in value judgments. If killing a human being is "never humane," then I have to wonder what "humane meat" means. We kill other things all the time *and* call it "humane" so long as the resultant suffering of what we're killing is minimized--at least this is what we argue. Why should what is humane be determined by chromosomes? I think the more reasonable understanding of "humane" is circumstantial--that we apply the descriptor as we see fit--and this depends on our judgment of a circumstance." I'm not trying to be difficult. But the root of these claims (it's never right to kill a human being) seems to be opinions, perspectives.
"I think that this is a reasonable position, especially in the case of something as simple as monetary theft." --> From what I've learned from at least two US state attorneys general (via their representatives), financial crimes (fraud) tend to be exceedingly complex. I respect that you feel the position you advocate for is reasonable. There are many who disagree. Other than what the law happens *now* to say, I don't see any natural way to determine who is "right."
"I am surprised that people can win civil cases by not showing up to court." --> They don't "win." By not showing up a judgment is typically entered in favor of the plaintiff. However, collecting on the judgment is another matter. It costs over $10,000 to get a piece of paper that then allows you to spend thousands more to go through a very complex procedure to itemize the social predator's assets--which most will hide. Very many of these individuals also relocate to other jurisdictions/states, frustrating attempts to collect. You have to reopen cases to pursue these individuals again. The net result is very, very often far more costly than the amount stolen. Someone shouldn't have to spend $50,000 pursing a thief who defrauded her of $30,000 of life savings.
"why would a con artist steal from a poor person?" --> Many of these social predators make a living defrauding a few tens of thousands from the elderly or the ill or the desperate because these are the least protected (no family or friends) and those whom the law doesn't care about (not wealthy enough). In a recent case I was involved with, the Attorney General of the US state of Illinois said, "There isn't enough money involved here to justify us getting involved." This was for a fraud case involving $75,000, a lot of money to a sick, elderly woman but under the state's threshold. Consequently, the woman exhausted her credit to pursue the criminal in civil court, won the judgment because the individual never bothered to show up to court, lost in total over $100,000, and ended up losing her house. The so-called justice system chose not to pursue the matter criminally, despite the woman having banking, certified accounting, and other legal documents corroborating her claims, because not enough money was stolen from her. That encourages social predators to keep targeting these kinds of desperate people.
"On point four, I will remind you that civil cases are not dependent on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (at least in Canada). Rather they are settled by determining the relative liability of all parties for damage caused." --> I am confident most citizens who've had their lifeblood stolen from them and, therefore, cannot survive any longer because they're too old or ill to start over and have no state or family survival aid would disagree with this verbiage difference between "guilt" and "relative liability ... for damage caused." This is, I believe, one reason so many don't respect or follow the law.
"If someone steals money, the liability is pretty clear. All that remains is to prove that the defendant was responsible for, or complicit in, the theft." --> I frankly mean you no disrespect in asking this question, but, you're not an attorney, are you? Showing someone has stolen money, even when the evidence seems to the lay clear, is most certainly not pretty clear. And even when it is, as I shared above, unless the attorny general's office *chooses* to get involved, the clarity is irrelevant if the other party is determined not to pay.
I'll end here. Sorry for the long reply. I don't think how *_I_* think the justice system ought to change is important. It would be only my opinion and would be at least as vulnerable to corruption. My point remains, at least to me: no matter the system of laws imposed or agreed upon, it would always be a derivation of values enough people don't agree with and can't be convinced is "right."
I have a better question, is there any rehabilitation programs in prison facilities?
Non violent drug offenders, burglars petty thieves,yeah no problem rehabilitate those guys
@@kettlebellkyle311 No not just those people.. criminals in general
@Po Pimpin Rem doubt
It all depends upon the circumstances. What if the person you kill had done something horrible to you or someone you know? What if they were always a terrible murderer was never caught? Wouldn't killing them be a justice to you and the public? These are questions I'd have to ask myself before taking the life of someone I don't know.
You are completely right, but some people can't understand simple logic
@Darthraven1170 Good questions!
@Lundog I'm not trying to be argumentative--really. But I don't think this type of question is a matter of "logic," but instead of perspectives and feelings. For one person, killing may be always wrong while for another it may be permissible. Who can say who is "right"? If it were simple logic, we'd be able to demonstrate convincingly (for most) what "right" is.
And that is exactly when we should have empathy because the person they did bad to in your family, well they had people they were close to and they had family one of which was you and what im getting at is that knowing how much grief you would have to go through and the loss and how painful it is thats when we should have empathy because we should also see that, that person also has people who cares about him and who loves him/her so we wouldnt want the same upon another family you went through the grief and you felt it why would you want more people to go through the same thing?
If a person hurts you or your family you should call the cops or leave it dont act on your own. Maybe the pain can be too much to handle but you wont feel better when you kill someone believe me. Dont go and possibly waste your life being devoured by grief and resentment because at the end of the day you must move on after receiving justice or in some cases dont receive it. Just my thoughts
Killing animals is wrong too but I understand it food
It's more too it... what if a lion charges you and you kill it then ur not wrong.
"our child could be alive or could be dead"
Schroedinger be like: he is both dead and alive at the same time, he has quantum behavior.
One wrongly accused and being executed is one two many. People should not have the authority to take a life.
What about abortion
Death sentence shoildnt be legal, thieves would stop surrendering and nobody is dignified to take a life out of someone for whatever reason it might be
Unfortunately reality doesn't work that way
but yeah unfortunately it doesn't work that way...
Death sentence doesn't apply to every single crime.
Very emotional
Texas and Florida almost get giddy over handing out the death penalty. And you have some states that abolished the death penalty back in the 1800s. With one state being before the Civil War 1846. 19 States + Washington DC do not have the death penalty. The United States is the only major country in the world with the death penalty
@tackless "The United States is the only major country in the world with the death penalty." -- Please provide proof of this. From what I find, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Singapore, and Jordan--just to name a few countries--have the death penalty. And even though Russia and China *_claim_* not to have the death penalty, several world ethics commissions have independently corroborated reports of executions in both political giants. Or do you mean that only countries like the US, Canada, and Europe are "major" countries?
@@aiahzohar5636 Russia had a mandatorium since 1990's china can lie through its teeth all they want
@@aiahzohar5636 Russia and China always have death penalty, they never claimed not having death penalty.
Aiah Zohar Correction, the only developed country to still have the death penalty. America is just as backwards as many underdeveloped nations in some ways.
The title of this talk is ridiculous. Self defence is a reasonable reason to kill. They should change the title.
what of euthanasia
even self defence should not be aiming for kill
Self defense is not a reason to kill. Most people should flee and call for help. There are means to stunning the victim. Problem is how do you know if your being targeted? People don't look after one another don't communicate when they're threatened. Making sure the person is dead is not self defense
@Tragic Machine Legally harm and kill are 2 different things though. You don't need a headshot to defend yourself.
Applies to euthanaisa as well.
Instead of asking " is it ever alright to kill someone"; one should ask "is it ever right to put anyone in a bad situation"?
I firmly believe that every human being has a right to self defense by any means necessary. We have to remember that there are people out in this world that would have no remorse in killing you and I find that lack of acknowledge of these people rather indignant to how we perceive the existence of those with no moral judgement. They do exist and I for one will never see those people as equal.
Facts.
Imo, killing people is wrong, but in certain circumstances it is justified
@@chngguangze7895 true.
Yep your right. Humans from birth are innocent. Our actions determine our value.
@@hassansyed696 yep. A baby is innocent because the baby hasn't done anything morally wrong (unless existing is somehow wrong)
Good man.
Something i think should be mentioned is that there's a big difference between killing someone in self defense and an execution.
I understand that.
I wonder if he would have spoken of the mother so compassionately if she had still pushed for the death penalty...
I’m American and I hate the death penalty.
So you are on the side of violent murderers. That makes you a bad American
@@ogionwiz He doesn't agree with what murderers do. He would just prefer that he be put for a Life sentence, or anything that isn't Death.
@@KrypticSpiderMan ok, if a murderer will serve a life sentence in your house, you will feed him and guard him. And if he escapes - you, and all the remaining murderers in your house will be sentenced to death. Under those conditions I agree to not to put to death any number of murderers you a ready to house
Lion Kozlinskiy ...So wanting to kill a person for killing a person works FAR better than rehabilitation, does it?
Trust me, proposing the death penalty does *NOT* reduce the number of people who get murdered.
That person with their own potential to have hopes and dreams don’t matter because they grew up in a messed-up environment? Indeed, not everyone is redeemable, but most are, done properly.
Me too. More than anything, I hate that innocent people are sometimes killed for crimes they did not commit.
If you're serving a life sentence and are found guilty of taking the life of another inmate, you're given another life sentence.
The problem is, you only have one life to live.
Beautiful.
The title is a bit misleading because you’re not taking into account killing in self defense
no lmao
the goal of self defence should not be to kill
simply beautiful.
The title is wrong.
If you’re trying to kill me, or a loved one, I’m exercising deadly force to stop it. I’ll sleep soundly that night.
Damn
Make them rot in jail and do pretty much whatever but the death penalty is wrong is so many ways
So you propose to give them blood infection and not provide any medical assistance until they rot in jail? That is an unnecessary cruelty. It is better to kill them off swiftly and painlessly
@IR E thanks mate!
@Lions Ozlinskis I understand what you are saying, but the thing is that, that -1 bad person will be replaced, and that one will also be replaced. It will be an endless cycle that won't stop. And the death sentence give bad people in a sense, an easy way out. They will have a couple years in solitary confinement, or regretting what they did, and then...it's over. They don't get to think anymore, they don't face any punishment cause they are already dead.
@@KrypticSpiderMan
Get rid of solitary and go right for the axe. Problem solved.
2016
Killing is human nature so is lost, love, and rage
Jelani Sweet that is why you should aim higher than just ego survival
Part of our fallen nature perhaps.
@@ianalan4367 Uh no
@@ianalan4367 Humble yourself
Love is best.
Life is best.
Bible helps you to not kill Friendly peoples.
bless you.
The death penalty should be abolished under international law.
And what should we do if a country disobeys?
I’m not sure, and a lot of countries disobey international laws, such as by invading other countries, having torture, etcetera.
So basically, why not sanction them?
He gave no reasons why killing people is wrong. Just told stories. Downvote.
The case of Ken Rex Mccelroy.
Is he going to mention what these people did to be put on death row? Cuz that seems kinda important...
LOVE LIFE .
BIBLE : thou shalt not kill. thou shalt not steal. thou shalt not commit adultery. Honor your Father and your Mother so you will have longer life on earth.
What is Luke 6 37 in the Bible?
37 “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn others, or it will all come back against you. Forgive others, and you will be forgiven.
love life
in italian porco dio
What do you mean by that in this case?
Yes but what he fails to do in his argument is state the crimes his clients committed. Maybe because this would sway people away from his stance.
if someone receives the death penalty, they most likely committed murder. He, however, didn't mention the severity of their crimes of his clients but one of them - Chuck, which he was part of a triple homicide, even killed a 17 yr old girl that was pregnant, her mother fought for him to live tho.
Ok, so he talks alot about state-sanctioned killing. Agreed, I'm not a fan of giving the government that power. It's still a preference, and the outcome of that preference is usually cultural. So here we are, in another culture war.
The state has that power because the state is stronger than the constituents. The state could easily act against its own laws and only receive marginal losses. The entire argument is about hypotheticals where individuals can harm the government, and since they can't critiquing the government is ultimately pointless.
@@sethgaston8347 very interesting points you bring up. Thanks. 1) power dynamics/imbalance 2) the will of government and consistency 3) capital punishment as a display of power against the individual. The last one is most striking. The government kills under some guise of morality, or as a 3rd party arbitration judge, but it really kills because the defendant killed their property, the taxpayer. The lifeblood, the source of obedience, wealth, and a potential military force. Nobody gets to kill govt property without govt approval. Queue Sgt Lee Ermey from full metal jacket "marines are not allowed to die without permission!"
@@jonny5ive167 we are all government property from the moment we take our first breath but I believe that murder is not always wrong.
@@linagomez8464 i can't argue with the fact we were born on a human farm, or your preferences. Agreed.
Some people got to go
*Murder is not wrong because of religion; it’s wrong because if everyone killed someone just because they were angry or wanted something, then society would become highly dysfunctional, and there would be nobody to oppose your views and balance it out.*
its allready is dysfunctional this world is a lunatic asylum nothing is as it seems they have inverted the truth with lies
Murder should only be acceptable when in the name of immediately saving another human being with more societal value than another
"Society would become dysfunctional..."
Like it is now.
@@linagomez8464
Good job killing for your leaders, Helot.
@@linagomez8464societal value?
No
Some people just don't deserve the right to live it's as simple as that.
That’s no valid excuse, plain and simple. 😐
Some people deserve a life that they can live to the fullest extent. While some, they deserve to be put down like dogs
but you have to ask your self does that make you worse than them?
titinous Nope
@Julian Bartholomew Navarro I agree with *_one_* of your claims. ;)
@@aiahzohar5636 which one
just because they deserve death doesnt mean we should end their lives
I'm confident that if someone threatened Row's children, he'd sing a different tune.
I don't think you listened to what he said!
Hayley Gissing true
@@francescairns4097 Beyond the problem of there not seeming to be any such thing as clear morality, anyone faced with the practical problem of a lethal foe, I think, will act to preserve their own life or the lives of their loved ones. Even if that means using deadly force.
Why tho like why really is it wrong something can’t be wrong because u say it’s wrong there has to be a literal scientific reason like an objective one not morals because that’s subjective see there is none murder isn’t wrong
What a dry talk about morality with no reason as to why not to kill people besides "I saw a man who was sad because of it this one time." This is ridiculous and I would've thought that, as a lawyer, he would be able to make a point a little better.
That poor, dead, pregnant girl must be rolling in her grave at her mother's choice...
Well, people have nothing aside from their (lack of) feelings regarding support for the death penalty. It is absolutely ridiculous that the death penalty exists, and if you want just two points, the death penalty is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life and has still led to the execution of innocent people.
If you put someone in prison for life do you really save money as a taxpayer? 17,000 a year to keep an inmate (which can go as high as 60,000 dollars). That's 425,000 for 25 years if we apply the 17K. So it's actually much higher than that.
Source: U.S. Census Data and Vera Institute of Justice
We invest more money on inmates than we do on students. Yet we have criminals going in to schools and shooting them up.I say kill the criminals.
Well emotion probably persuades juries...
@@CrunchyDark from what i have heard the appeal process drives up costs for death row inmates. Id assume this is in lawyer fees and such, possibly record keeping, paying people to review cases. Then theres the cost of imprisonment while someone is on death row and the chance that a life sentence dies or gets parole before they have been in longer than death row lasts to an extent that costs more
no i think she would be glad that her mother didnt become a murderer just like the man that took her from her.
entire thing is based on its own claim. "Killing people is wrong, thus, killing people is wrong." This is in no way a proper argument and is frankly quite funny to see someone attempt to use
ok batman
1/2 way in and.........get to your point, except your not a very good lawyer ?
What if I told you killing isn't wrong at all and I have all just the same if not better arguments
killing or punishing an abuser is not wrong. otherwise the person keeps abusing you
Finally, someone with brains.
Anyone telling me people who torture and kill innocent should be allowed to live is a sick sick person imo.
ur just wrong lol k
I am a psychopath if I think killing isn’t bad we put it as bad because the brain wants survivalism
@Elijah Clayton what does bad mean ? simply human survival concepts if we actually think of it its irrelevent
people would kill others for more power at the drop of a hat,.
Absolutely not, most people are not like this.
@@traderofgoods6500 absolutely wrong most people would kill a stranger if they could get away with it.
@@massimocasella4201 I am incredibly certain that it's not Most people, and it's certainly not All people like john said.
There are people who are already content with their lives and wouldn't seek anything more than what they already have.
There are people who already have power of some kind or another, and I'd wager that more than half wouldn't need more power.
And there are people with Very strong morals who wouldn't kill under any circumstances, whether they wanted the power or not. I'm not sure how many people would be like this, but I know they exist.
Wtf so forgive all murderers? So what if murderers are killed can’t whoever gave them the death penalty be forgiven? Yeah yeah I get it forgiveness helps you heal but can’t you forgive the murderers when they are dead? Lol forget murderers. If they were truly sorry they never would have murdered
I don't think it's about forgiveness entirely, but mostly about letting go your anger at them as it doesn't help anybody.
It's also important to know that murders/murderers aren't all the same. It's easy to dismiss someone as just a 'murderer' but you don't truly know their mind or who they are.
It is up to god to judge a criminal, and our job is to send the criminals to see god :)
Not if they are racists