Originally Posted by
apple
Are you saying "The deliberate taking of one's own life." is not a proper definition? I was applying it to the 3 cases you presented and what I presented pretty much fits. "The deliberate taking of one's own life", which implies someone taking their own life, with intention of doing so. If it's also done by someone else, it can't be a full-on suicide, can it? Sure, the person has a part in it and all, but there's another entity who has influence in it, thus also making it partially a homicide. That's basically my train of thought on this.
Anyway, I back the definition the legal dictionary presents, hence my quoting of the article. I'll halt my posting on this thread, since I've given my 0.02$.
The bolded portion is what many would find argumentative. Maybe not considering it a "full-on" suicide, simply because of the example with the man and the gun: he is still the one to pull the trigger which would make him accountable as well. However, the train-track example is erasing the malice intentions of an individual. If a person rests on the rails of a train track and is killed, there wasn't any intentions for the driver to kill anyone. It was the person's own choice to put them-self into a situation which would cause death. Hence, an arguable form of suicide. Going back to the gun example: the person who is confronted by the gunman is placed in a
dangerous situation; however, if acting appropriate, the person can live. It's because of a decision made by both parties that the victim is dead, yes; however, the person still dies because of an action which has intent of taking their own lives.
*Edit* Saw Oyster's Post:
The legal system is always right, because no matter what decision is made, so long as A decision was made the court has functioned properly.
Also, by the commonly held definition (willfully ending your own life, regardless of whether or not you committed the act itself), there really isn't much of a discussion to be had because the only possible logical avenue of thought has already been discussed.
The legal system does indeed function properly. That in no way makes the laws morally or even logically justified. If a law stated women couldn't eat ice cream on Tuesday was passed, and a court enforces this law and holds a standard procedure, the court has "functioned properly"; however, that doesn't mean the laws are just.
Going on to your comment about "regardless of whether or not you committed the act itself", that is a very argumentative statement that you are trying to force as a given fact. That's also one of the primary questions to debate: is it suicide if you aren't the one doing it. If you will take notice of what others have said, that question has been answered in more than one way which result in complete opposites. Obviously this means this isn't a given fact. It's something that has to be debated, illustrated through examples, etc.
Last edited by Bodhisattva; Mar 13, 2010 at 12:37 AM.