Does societies laws kill homeless people?

I just saw this Law & Order episode that had a case that was very intriguing. This homeless dude killed another homeless dude because he wouldn't share his orange. It became a case of Human Nature VS Societies Laws. The law says not to kill. Human Nature says to resort to murder for your own survival. "Survival of The Fittest".

So the lawyer in defense of the homeless man had a hell of a defense/argument to be like: "Being homeless is like being in the wilderness. Society casts homeless out into exile. Society treats and sees homeless people like animals." (Although i always refer to human beings as such being we are apart of the animal kingdom. Were just at the top of the food chain. Please keep this in mind for this discussion. Here's an argument for you if you think otherwise of this point: "If were something more then animals then what are we?... Gods?")

Now the Law & Order lawyer (Sam Waterson) had another argument saying that: Society is meant to protect people, but also to punish. We can't ignore the fact that this man murdered another man and if justice isn't served then society really did turn its back to homeless people. Because what about the man who died? You can't ignore him and pretend he never existed.

They both had strong arguments and i couldn't pick a side. But i guess that in a dire situation a humans' primal instincts kick in and.... well.... Shit happens. Back in cave men times. If one cave man was starving and saw another cave man with that orange. The hungry cave man would contemplate for a while and judge whether or not he can kill the other cave man. And if he thinks he can, he will try. If he succeeds. He eats. Because as we all know. In the end the only thing a human would think about is its own survival.

That's definitely a tough one. I can agree with both sides of the argument, and you did a good job of explaining why they each make sense.

My first thought was to go with the survival of the fittest argument, until I saw the line "then society really did turn its back to homeless people". Which made me rethink and go the other way.

Huh...I think...I'd side with the killer, if he hadn't killed the other guy over such a trivial reason.

An orange? Hell, that's the second stupidest reason I've heard to kill someone.

Okay based on that, what kind of reason would have been acceptable? Also you can make the argument of: 'Why didn't he just steal an orange from a grocery store?" Although, some might argue that that would be a bit difficult or they wouldn't even let him in to begin with.

Furthermore, second? Well... i heard of this dude who killed his dad for 300 dollars.

It is not ok for humans to kill any other humans regardless of where they are in the social hierarchy and this includes those in poverty.

Killing the man with the orange was not the only way to survive. Perhaps if it was the last form of food on the face of the planet then maybe.

However it was probably NOT the last form of food in existence.

The homeless man who had no food could have possibly found another means to get food for his survival. Begging is one of them. Not everyone is cold and heartless and surely if he had worked hard enough to beg to everyone in the city he would have received some form of food or money from SOMEONE.

It seems as though he acted out like that was his only way to survive. He MUST have THAT orange, is how he makes it seem. Chances are though he could have found another orange (or any other food) somewhere else.

He could have even stolen food as a means to survive instead of resorting to murder.

There were other options but he ignored them and chose the worst one he could possibly choose. I do believe there are instances when it is necessary to take another human's life, this is not one of those instances however.

I hope he was convicted of murder and sentenced like he should be in that episode. (At least then he'd get locked up and have a roof over his head and food served to him.)

Isn't it saddening that our own criminals are better off than those on the street?

Exactamundo! They addressed that in the episode too. In the end he was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years. I had the same exact thought. In prison he'll have shelter and food everyday. He might get raped. But still. Where i live (Which is not the united states or from any english speaking country. hell its not even a country its an island.) Last year there was this thing: An inmate got upset and complained because he didn't get any fruit with his breakfast. I thought that was absurd.

[size=8]This post has withered away[/h]

Four guys fought over a joint, and someone took a lamp to the head, and died.

Anyway, I think it would be acceptable, though I'd much prefer he didn't actually kill the guy, if the homeless dude assaulted someone with money, and used it to buy food or clothes or something.

People living in homes, with paychecks, food, and electricity often forget exactly how being hungry feels, or how cold the night air is.

Desperation makes a convincing argument.

Murder is murder no matter who you are, that's how I see it.

If you're a lucky fucker that can afford a nice lawyer you can get out of it sometimes though. (OJ...)

If I were a pathetic homeless person with no hope of surviving on my own I would just commit a bunch of thefts until I got arrested to be honest. Like I said, better off in prison. Just stick with your own race or avoid talking to many people and you're good. Gotta mind your own business in prison with all the gangs and such.

No fruit with his breakfast? Someone should remind him he's in prison and not a fancy ass breakfast in bed type place. xP

And that's the theme in Batman Begins. I thought of that too. Most people who steal you might say are just greedy. But if a homeless person breaks into your house or robs you at gunpoint or with some other threatening weapon, i would have to assume that its for his survival. In which case I'd have to tell him: "Next time just ask." Because someone else i know made the argument of: 'He didn't have to kill the man. That wasn't his only option. He could have for example: Begged in the city. Most of the people won't give him anything, but by process of elimination someone has to eventually help him."

The fact of the matter is that the society that has been established has narrowed man's view of the world, even to the point where some humans are incapable of understanding the actions of other members of their own species due to their position in society. You're thinking about things from the perspective of a person that doesn't have to struggle to survive, but if you were homeless, would you see it the same way? Sure, the guy did have the option of begging for food, but as was stated in the man's defense, the homeless are cast into exile and people who care are few and far between. When the trial started, the homeless guy was dressed as a he would any other day and Jack McCoy, the DA for the people who don't watch Law & Order, objected to his appearing in court that way because it was "inappropriate." The expectations that we have can't be applied to the homeless because we've turned them, almost literally, into a different breed of human than us.

This is one of the reason why I have such a disdain for modern man and the society it has created. The laws that are put into affect are meant to apply to everyone, but in drafting them there is very little consideration put into the varying lifestyles that exist. The laws of society that were created to provide everyone with equality and freedom suppress the beliefs and instincts that define people as they are today. I'm not saying that there should be different laws for different people, what I'm saying is that people aren't equal, even if it says so on paper. Human society is a really tall ladder and the homeless are at the bottom rung.

Hm... I don't know what else to say to that. I agree. It relates to one of the best article I've ever read. Tell me something. Are you familiar with the Monkeysphere?

:arrow:

i would read this first



laws, ethics and social standards are all set to rule, for one party to control the other only in preferable reasonings, but however, they're created and made up by none other than ourselves, human, so it's definitely arguable that one could defy it and at the same time defend his position in his actions(lawyers and such are for this purpose). u made a very good point about the natural primal instinct that possibly all living creatures have is to survive, no matter under what circumstances or conditions, like Jesus stated, "if their well-being is being hindered by another person, that person better step aside or expect the worst", true, but this is exactly where all the conventionally correct theories of humanity and ethical treatments of people kicks in, people'll start blowing shits like "u shouldn't kill" or "killing is wrong" "such acts should result in punishment", i remember daalif once stated that the justification of killing is arrogant to be considered about in the first place and i thought i agreed, so all in all, at the end of the day, it's all about who lived and who died, certainly it seem a bit cold but let's face it, that's just how we really are, though we pretend all the time to be nice and sympathetic, and humans only show their true nature at the last moments of the their lives and also, i'm not mixing any religious believes or teachings in here, it'll get real messy if people started referencing the bible for cases like this, so there u go, the society can do whatever it thinks it's right to do, but just remember that human are simply mere living creatures as well.

and just for the sake of argument, killing someone for an orange is much too pathetic a reasonable action, i'd feel sad to even punish someone like that. :(

EDIT: oh shit jesus made response, ignore what i said, go with what he says

All hail Brittania!

Sorry. I couldn't resist. On topic, I side with the Law on this. I would imagine killing someone to take a lot of energy (depending on the circumstances). So using all that energy just for an orange seems like a waste. It would be put to better use by going to a homeless shelter or stealing from a grocery store. Of course, killing someone is a quick way to go to prison, which provides people with three square meals a day and cable TV (in the USA anyway), so I can imagine someone killing a stranger just to go to prison.

:!:

Very well written. The law isn't making people do this, it is society. All we ever care about now is ourselves and the most important thing is Me, Myself and I. Even without being on the very bottom ladder of society, we still act in the same way a homeless person does, except we aren't as desperate and try to keep within the bounds of law. As mentioned, we look at things in our own perspective without trying to fit our feet into their shoe which are a lot smaller and less comfortable. The people on the jury don't know what it's like to starve for days or to scrounge around trying to make up your mind on where their going to sleep that night. I know killing is going over board, but do we as people who won't be able to grasp their situation have the right to carry out punishment on them?

I say no. I say this because the laws themselves are not performing the action, however I can also safely say this: were a homeless man to save the money he gets by bumming off of other people he can gather enough to clean himself up enough that he can try to get a job, now a typical bum's on self-destructive lifestyle is the only thing truly preventing them from doing this, that and/or whatever mental disorder(s) they might have. When a homeless guy kills another there is no forgiveness, aside from the chance to better themselves in prison, if you can prove it to the jury. Murder is murder and even if it was out of desperation (aside from self defense) and should be punished as a crime, besides living in prison is a better lifestyle than living on the streets, they are both fairly dangerous, but you get food, water, a place to clean up, and a warm bed to sleep in, something you won't find on the streets. Were you to not punish the homeless person then you would be setting a precedence that being homeless means you don't have to follow society's rules, which from there you can basically say that homeless people are either below man's law or they aren't people, either of which is something that isn't right.

:arrow:

what do u mean by that, laws are ideas, and ethical concepts that humans come up with, it's basically a set of rules that's suppose to guide us from wrong-doings, that being said, laws are imaginary, so it should be obvious that they can not "perform" any physical activities of any sort, we humans are the ones who go through the procedures "according" to the law, on the other hand, we simply applied law on others, then is it just a result from what laws have enforced us to do anyways?

Exactly, the laws themselves aren't killing people, people kill people (ok technically physics kills people but that is not the point.) and it is the law's job to provide a code of how to respond to people who do not act like civilized humans.

Civilized humans.... People like to use that word a lot. This is kind of off topic but i find it fascinating. Lets go back to the old days again. A baby pops out of a female and doesn't look all that good. It came out deformed. Back then we were more like: "What the fuck is this? This thing'll never survive. Look at it, its got its left foot growing out of his head. hell, we should eat that."

Which they probably did. Now bring it back to the modern day. A dog has a bunch of kids. And the mom actually might kill some of them off. The first time i saw that i was like: "Why?" But then i came to understand why. If the mother sees any kind of deformity or ailment, either physically or mentally. the pup has to die. Because it'll never survive if it was left on its own. And even if it does, there's the chance that it might have offspring which could also come out looking retarded. And the mom thinks that if that happens then it'll upset the balance of nature. Which it very well could.

But throughout the ages people decided at some point for some reason. To not kill the children who come out wrong. Now this may make me sound like a cold hearted bastard who wants to see all people who are mentally challenged put to sleep. And yeah you might be right. I really don't want to live too long. And by that i mean get to that ripe old age where the laughter of children enrage me into the point of crapping myself in my adult diapers. Then having to call on the nurse to flip me over and powder my ass. But there isn't anything i can really do to prevent that. Its all based on chance. or i'd have to kill myself. Which i won't.

Better a civilized human than an uncivilized one. I've seen uncivilized humans, they are not pleasant, and that is putting it as mildly as I can.

I have no idea why people allow the (heavily)mentally handicapped to live on, physical handicaps you can work around, (heavy)mental ones not so much, sometimes they can barely function on the most basic levels of society, they aren't even that great on those levels more often than not, plus they have to live with the humiliation of never being as good as an average person. I have a fairly low opinion of the average person in the first place, barely placing them over the (lightly) mentally handicapped until proven otherwise. Then again I've seen some mentally handicapped people who make me look like a total fucking moron so it is generally on a case to case basis, as it is with most things.