RoR: Forum

I am not sure about the distinction between "self-defense" and "retaliatory force". All force by the government is (or at least shouold be) retaliatory, that is, in response to an initiation of force by criminals, terrorists, etc. All such force is done for the purpose of defense, that is, minimizing further loss by eliminating the threat once and for all. Granted, the instances where we know for sure that someone committed a crime is rare, but they do happen. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, and Hussein are good examples. How about those two Trenchcoat Mafia punks who killed all those people at Columbine High School, say, if they have been taken alive?

Here is another example. Prior or during the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, would anyone be opposed to deploying Special Forces or Navy SEALs to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or any of their lackeys? If not, then how is killing them then different from killing them after capturing them alive? My point is the government has historically been in the business of taking the lives of those who would infringe on the rights of others. I am unsure how the timing of when they're killed matters, whether it be at the moment they commit the crime, or long after.

I have given this matter some thought and I don't have any clear answers. My tentative position is that there are, in fact, instances where the death penalty would be prudent. Any further insights or clarifications would be great.

Post 21

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 4:18pm

While I agree that no existing judicial system comes close enough to infallibility to be trusted with the death penalty, some Continental systems are much closer than existing systems in English-speaking countries. In particular, I like the Swiss idea of a structural barrier between investigation and prosecution. The Swiss put the process of investigation in the judicial branch rather than the executive. The investigating magistrate is charged with conducting an impartial and objective investigation, and with equal care for identifying the guilty and protecting the freedom and reputation of the innocent. If the evidence justifies a trial, the prosecution and the defense get identical copies of the full evidence. Thus there is no opportunity for investigators to team up with the prosecution and distort the evidence - and the defense remains free to investigate any facts that the investigating magistrate may have missed. When the records of false convictions (e.g. the frequency of pre-DNA convictions shown to have been false by subsequent DNA analysis) are compared, the Swiss system measures up as being much more accurate.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 1/20, 4:20pm)

Post 22

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 4:49pm

"Prior or during the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, would anyone be opposed to deploying Special Forces or Navy SEALs to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or any of their lackeys? "

No that is a different category. It falls under self-defence.

A country specifically assassinates the leader of a country, group or army that is threatening your citizens with force.

It is legitimate to take out the executive specifically that is issuing the orders. In certain situations capture is too dangerous or costly.

However, if caught after being defeated or being handed over by someone else unarmed - it would then be a matter of a criminal trial.

Targeted assassinations as part of self-defence by a states do not fall under normal criminal law - which is what we are discussing.

Post 23

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:32am

I think that a distinction should be made between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt." The latter, I believe, should at least qualify for a death penalty.

"Beyond any doubt" is when 20 people witness a murder on a street. It is Saddam Hussein. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is OJ Simpson.

Post 24

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:24am

Alec wrote:

>> I think that a distinction should be made between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "beyond any doubt." The latter, I believe, should at least qualify for a death penalty.

>> "Beyond any doubt" is when 20 people witness a murder on a street. It is Saddam Hussein. "Beyond reasonable doubt" is OJ Simpson.

Alec, I see where you are coming from (Lindsay's least favourite phrase!).

But try enshrining that principle into watertight, unambiguous, legislation that avoids **any** possibility of a person being executed for a crime they may later turn out not to have committed. That's where the problem comes in.

I honestly have no problem per se with the *idea* of someone like Saddam Hussein being put to death - it is simply the practical specifics of how you can draft a law that sufficiently defines 'beyond any doubt' that trouble me. What is the test? We already have a system for defining guilt, but, because it relies on human beings, it is fallible. And if you think I'm crapping on, try drafting the wording yourself. I don't believe it can be done.

Jonathan

Post 25

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 3:29am

John Stuart Mill makes the point that sticking someone in a jail cell is no better than the death penalty. You're taking the person's life away from them in both cases. It could be argued that life imprisonment is a far worse experience.

I think putting someone's lights out is entirely appropriate in many cases.

Happy Friday!

Post 26

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:01am

>> I think putting someone's lights out is entirely appropriate in many cases.

But what if you accidentally put the *wrong* person's lights out???? Is it still appropriate?!

Post 27

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:35am

I have problems with the idea of appropriate punishment and getting the right man.

I do not support the death penalty on the grounds that even the best justice system is not omnipotent and fallible, but on the other hand I do not believe the individual deserves to go on living.

So I propose that instead of a lethal injection, the individual should be injected so as to put him into a deep coma so his mind completely stops and is completely unconscious for the rest of his natural life. If he is guilty, then he will never wake-up, or regain consciousness. If he is determined innocent at a later date, he can be revived to full health. The cost of keeping him in such a vegetative state would be much less can keeping him 'alive' and conscious.

Incidently are their different degrees of murder, which is a more evil act, strangling an eighty year old on his death bed when he only has days to live, or suffocating a baby which has an entire life to lead. Should justice be proportional to how much life was cut short?

Post 28

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 7:12am

“Should justice be proportional to how much life was cut short?”

Let’s not go there. Linz will jump in to advocate lesser penalties where the victim is a head banging caterwauler.

Jon

Post 29

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 9:31am

I am beginning to feel that the death penalty is not a good idea, but there are some reasons for retaining it. One reason is the "bargaining" factor which allows prosecutors to use the option in order to get a confession of murder so as to avoid it. This while it may not deter the criminal from committing murder, but it can help afterwards when the apprehended criminal may be thinking more rationally. I also think that certain very heinous crimes, or perhaps even murdering the police, may be best served with such a penalty. This would make a criminal being apprehended less likely to shoot at the police or less likely to commit a murder against an officer.

On the question posed as to a difference between taking out criminals in a hostage situation or similar, that is crucially different from an execution. In the former, the criminal is still at large and fully capable of perpetuating harm against innocents or the hostage, therefore this would fall under the same category as self defense, where the Law is the instrument used to protect the innocent citizen. However, an execution once the criminal is neutralized and in custody is NOT the same, so I reject an argument making a comparison. One is defense, the other is a punishment, so the question must be, is the punishment acceptable?

Post 30

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 9:58am

Kurt wrote: "However, an execution once the criminal is neutralized and in custody is NOT the same, so I reject an argument making a comparison. One is defense, the other is a punishment, so the question must be, is the punishment acceptable?"

I am still unclear about the difference between defense and punishment. Isn't the only purpose of government the defense of individual rights, and punishment / retribution / retaliation (or whatever you wish to call it) but a means of defending those rights? When a criminal is sentenced to jail or prison, you are minimizing a threat by seperating the criminal from everyone else. Executing them is another means of minimizing the threat.

The only convincing argument is the irreversability of a death sentence, as opposed to a life sentence. The premise there is that depriving an innocent person of liberty is the lesser evil compared to depriving an innocent person of life. How, then, is the innocent person compensated for time wrongfully spent in jail? Or should they not be compensated at all?

Again, don't get me wrong. I am against the death penalty for that reason above. I want to clarify the reasons for why we should be against it, and what the alternatives are.

Post 31

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:34am

Byron Garcia writes:

How, then, is the innocent person compensated for time wrongfully spent in jail? Or should they not be compensated at all?

I believe I've read recently of a case where the innocently imprisoned was charged for room and board!

Post 32

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:40am

Byron, I was trying to say that I saw a difference between killing during the course of a crime - i.e. defense - as compared to punishment, when the issue of removal of the threat is then possible to debate. In the former, you can't choose to implement Life, whereas in the latter you are not being forced to execute, therefore you may choose a different option that avoids the possibility of an (irreversible) error. I think that we should retain the option, but it should only be for extreme cases, and rarely used.

Post 33

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:32am

'Let’s not go there. Linz will jump in to advocate lesser penalties where the victim is a head banging caterwauler.'

For the record, I think the penalty for murder should be the same as no-one can predict an individuals future life expectancy.

Timothy McVeigh before he was finally executed was sedated so that he could neither think, feel or be aware of anything that happened next. Why not simply leave it at that as the individual is no longer alive in the sense that he is conscious and aware that he is alive, he may aswell be dead, as people in such states with no hope of retrieval are simply left to die naturally.

Of course by keeping his biological processes going, whilst his mind is a blank means that he could be ressurected if future technology and investigation shows reasonable doubt of his guilt.

Of course, if he is guilty then then the convicts will never wake ever again and effectively dies on the first injection.

I wonder whether this should also be used for other prisoners serving certain terms. Instead of doing time, he would be loosing time. I venture this as prisoners do not suffer the same fate inside. A weedy computer nerd in jail for hacking has a lot more to fear than the ruthless hired henchman of a Mafia Don. The sedation punishment would be fair and cheap (Who needs a maximum security prison to secure a vegetable.)

Post 34

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 2:33pm

'“Should justice be proportional to how much life was cut short?” Let’s not go there. Linz will jump in to advocate lesser penalties where the victim is a head banging caterwauler.'

Penalties? What penalties?!

Post 35

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 4:43pm

John,

I'm not talking about drafting a new law. I'm talking about assessing a sentence based on the existing laws.

Alec

Post 36

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 10:33pm

>> John,

>> I'm not talking about drafting a new law. I'm talking about assessing a sentence based on the existing laws.

>> Alec

I think you mean Jonathan, Alec!

Your above point is in my view something of a distinction without a difference. It still presupposes that an individual, in this case a judge, should have the power of life and death over another individual and get to decide whether they are guilty 'beyond any doubt'. Like Barbara, I am uncomfortable about giving this much discretion to *anyone*.

Exactly *how* do they make this (ultimately subjective) judgment? Would you care to draft the judicial guidelines for the judges to follow in such cases?!

Jonathan

Post 37

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 2:05am

I think a very high standard of evidence can be set. A certain minimum of eye-witnesses, for example. There is absolutely no subjectivity involved in convicting Saddam of such a crime, and there similarly would be no subjectivity involved in convicting someone who opens rapid fire in a crowded mall.

One definite standard would be a minimum of eye-witnesses. Yet another could be footage. If there was footage of a person committing a crime, that is quite objectively "beyond any doubt."

Post 38

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 2:32am

>> One definite standard would be a minimum of eye-witnesses.

How *many* witnesses, Alec? And what if they are in fact all lying, in a conspiracy to get their mutual enemy put to death?

>> Yet another could be footage. If there was footage of a person committing a crime, that is quite objectively "beyond any doubt."

Really? Are you sure? Do you not believe it is possible to edit/doctor film footage so as to depict events that never actually took place? (You must have seen the movie 'Who framed Roger Rabbit'?!)

Sorry to seem picky, Alec, but we are talking about issues of life and death here. And possibly your life, or mine.

Post 39

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 2:33am