Rubout Argument Analysis
RubOut
According to reports yesterday, July 23, 2013—the rubout argument has been proven by the investigative team. For this essay, the question will be—“Is it right to kill criminals?” Before we can answer the question, there are two things to consider? (1) Was the murdering of the two members of the Ozamiz group rooted on moralistic reasons—like what vigilantes do? Or (2), because the two “implicated” certain police officers [names]?
Here, we must answer both possibilities with an if-then argument. If (1) was true, then constitution-wise, it’s unquestionably wrong. This one can go a long way. First, the judge didn’t ask for their opinion for justice. In fact, the two we’re still going to have a trial. And by the new law—the death sentence has been, so to speak, rubbed-out. For if they killed the two for moral reasons like vigilantes would reason-out, then again it’s still wrong for no one has the right to put the law in his/her own hands. …show more content…
For murder is killing without a reason to justify. But our (1) first case is within the definition of homicide. Here’s Encarta’s definition for homicide: “Homicide is a generic term, comprehending not only the crimes of murder and manslaughter but also the taking of a human life under circumstances justifying the act or in a sense excusing its commission. Thus, the killing of an enemy on the battlefield as an act of war is considered justifiable homicide, and killing, without malice, to save one's own life or the lives of one's dependents is termed excusable homicide.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. In our case, there was no self-defense. It just doesn’t fit within what’s called justifiable or excusable
According to reports yesterday, July 23, 2013—the rubout argument has been proven by the investigative team. For this essay, the question will be—“Is it right to kill criminals?” Before we can answer the question, there are two things to consider? (1) Was the murdering of the two members of the Ozamiz group rooted on moralistic reasons—like what vigilantes do? Or (2), because the two “implicated” certain police officers [names]?
Here, we must answer both possibilities with an if-then argument. If (1) was true, then constitution-wise, it’s unquestionably wrong. This one can go a long way. First, the judge didn’t ask for their opinion for justice. In fact, the two we’re still going to have a trial. And by the new law—the death sentence has been, so to speak, rubbed-out. For if they killed the two for moral reasons like vigilantes would reason-out, then again it’s still wrong for no one has the right to put the law in his/her own hands. …show more content…
For murder is killing without a reason to justify. But our (1) first case is within the definition of homicide. Here’s Encarta’s definition for homicide: “Homicide is a generic term, comprehending not only the crimes of murder and manslaughter but also the taking of a human life under circumstances justifying the act or in a sense excusing its commission. Thus, the killing of an enemy on the battlefield as an act of war is considered justifiable homicide, and killing, without malice, to save one's own life or the lives of one's dependents is termed excusable homicide.” Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. In our case, there was no self-defense. It just doesn’t fit within what’s called justifiable or excusable