Based on my review of the latest BQP thread on capital punishment (CP), I have a question for those of you who believe CP is wrong based any of the following concepts A) Killing is wrong, period or B) CP is wrong b/c of the possibility of wrongful convictions and associated irreversibility.
Put yourself in the following situation (Overall, the situation is somewhat contrived, but I am trying to get to a serious question). You are a female, and a series of women have been attacked over the past month in the area in which you live. Some of the women have been raped, some robbed, some beaten, some all three. A few women have been confronted by the rapist but have been left alone. None of the victims have been killed. The attacker has been identified by the victims, and his photos have been widely circulated. It is only a matter of time until he is caught.
On night, you are awoken by the rapist on your bedroom when he turns on the lights. You pull your 9mm out from under the pillow and tell him to back off or die. He keeps coming.
Do you shoot him? I.e., is it justified to kill someone to keep from getting raped? Is it justified to kill someone to keep from getting beaten? How about robbed? If you kill him, have you imposed the DP without actually knowing if a crime was even going to be committed, or knowing what type of crime would be committed? If it is ok to kill to prevent a rape, why is it not acceptable as punishment for a rape (Please consider the high recidivism rate in your answer)? Obviously, opinions differ here. I am curious what you individual position is
I don’t understand the question. You ask for the opinions of people who are anti-capital punishment and then you posit a situation which involves self-defence. Self-defence has nothing whatsoever to do with capital punishment.
Self-defence is a heat of the moment, last-ditch attempt to save your life. Capital punishment is a slow sombre deliberation by the legal system and then formal execution by the state.
Self-defence is not capital punishment.
The basic difference is that when the criminal is bearing down on you in your house you don’t know what he’s going to do. So if a reasonable person would be in fear of their life in that situation then you would be justified in killing them.
Once a person has already committed the crime and been caught then the criminal justice system is dealing with something that happened in the past so it imposes an appropriate penalty for that crime.
Self-defence is concerned with something that will happen in the future (and is therefore an unknown quantity). Capital punishment (or any criminal sanction) is concerned with something that happened in the past (and is therefore a known quantity).
Although Canada does not have the death penalty, it can and does classify some convicts as “Dangerous Offenders”, which essentially imposes a life sentence for the cumulative harm caused by one’s crimes and the likeliness of re-offending. Some 300 persons, typically serial rapists, have been so classified.
Within the Unites States, “Megan’s Law” and similar legislation postulates that some criminals constitute an ongoing threat, requiring these individuals be identified to local citizens. It’s a bit gray-ish, and subject to legal challenges (though considering the types of people affected by such laws, the challenges typically fail) but it certainly isn’t focussed solely on something that “happened in the past”.
I also find the OP to be pointless, trying to draw a connection between self-defense and judicial execution. All I can say is, if you ever use deadly force on an attacker, make sure you kill them so they can’t testify against you at a later civil or criminal proceeding, i.e. your account will be the only one on record.
Folks, he’s asking for an answer based on two common complaints about capital punishment. I have heard people who oppose the DP because they say it is wrong to kill another human being. For those people who say it is wrong to kill a human being, does that include self-defense?
Agh. What a compound question. (A) is irrelevent, since if you really believe killing is always wrong, you wouldn’t kill even to prevent a rape or murder. I won’t bother discussing this here, except to say that there are people who agree and disagree with this who I would respect greatly for it, and I’m not really competent to judge the gray areas.
For (B), I’m not really seeing a contradiction. I’m sure many people do believe killing is ok as self-defence or even revenge, except that our current legal system, or any legal system, may not be able to enforce CP sufficiently fairly.
Though not quite what you asked, I assume what you want to hear about is people who think killing is acceptable for self-defense and prevention but not acceptable for punishment ever. That is people who think that: (being raped) is worse than (a rapist being killed) is worse than (a rapist being thwarted and not killed)
Am I right? Do you want a justification of the bolded statement, or just assurance that some people do believe that? I apologise if I’ve misunderstood you. If so, please explain again in smaller words if necessary
Since you asked for individual positions, mine is that killing can be justified in self defense, but not in capital punishment. If a rapist is bearing down on you in your bedroom and won’t stop, shooting him may be the only way for you to gain control of the situation and protect your right not to be raped. Not at all analogous to capital punishment, in which the state already has the criminal locked up, has total control over him, and deliberately, methodically kills him.
Given the fact that the attacker has before beaten and raped his victims, without robbing them (which I will take to mean that he enjoys the violence, finds it to be a part of his fantasy), and that those fantasies can spin out on there own, so to say, or once he has raped, and found it unfulfilling, he wants to do more, and he has already shown violence, so the fantasies could progress to murder.
And, given that I have also threatened the attacker, which in itself could cause him to become angry and try to kill me, I say shoot him. Yes, his past record shows that most likely he will not kill me. I might be killing a person who would not kill me. However, he has already shown the inclination to do violence, so he is a threat. And he could start murdering, and I might be the first. In this case, as he has made the first step toward violating my own safety, I value my life higher than his own, and I will defend it. I wouldn’t shoot someone on the street, but if they try to harm me, I will fight back with everything I have.
Ooh, I forgot to add in my post, I don’t have cites on the internet for all the assumptions and theories I posted, as it all came from reading books written by members of the FBI’s Investigative Support Unit, John Douglas and Robert Ressler.
It is wrong for me to kill an attacker. However, it is also wrong for an attacker to kill me. So, if I’m attacked by someone who’s trying to kill me … well, there are two “wrong” options in this situation, I will pick the one that allows me to survive.
Self-defence is reasonable … if you have reason to believe your attacker is going to use deadly force on you, you’re entitled to use deadly force back. (In the situation described in the OP: how do you know your attacker is the non-killing sort of rapist?) I’m not an absolute pacifist; in a “kill or be killed” situation, I will (attempt to) kill rather than be killed. (And I’ll probably fail, but at least I’ll go down swinging … )
Capital punishment, on the other hand, does not involve a kill or be killed situation - your prisoner is caught, tried, convicted, imprisoned, he or she poses no further threat to society.
(Someone is bound to point out that a small number of murderers have been released from prison and have gone on to kill again. To which my answer is, well, they shouldn’t have been released, then, should they?)
Summary: self-defence is one situation, capital punishment is a completely different one. It’s wrong to kill, but it’s (arguably) excusable if there’s no practical alternative. There are practical alternatives to state execution.
I have to admit that I got a hard time figuring out why killing in self defense is wrong. If self-defense is “reasonable” as you say then how could it ever be wrong?
Different senses/degrees of “wrong”. Being forced to kill, when you would have rather not be put in that situation, is not a “right” (=good, beneficial, pleasing) thing to happen to you, even if the action of killing is the “right” (=adequate, appropriate, correct) thing to do.
… So killing in self defense is “a” wrong (=an unpleasant, painful thing to happen), as opposed to “is wrong” (=something you must not do). This is a case in which two “wrongs” do make a right.
I suspect we’re approaching this question from completely different ethical premises, but let me try to explain mine …
Killing people is wrong. Period. No exceptions. The taking of a human life is always a wrong choice.
However, in this fallen world of ours, there arise situations where you don’t get a right choice. If I may flirt with Godwin for a moment: World War Two was, undoubtedly, a bad thing. Millions of people died, chunks of Europe and Asia and Africa were laid waste, it was bad news all round. Unfortunately, the only available alternative would have been worse. So … I can’t exactly condemn those who fought on the right side in World War Two, but I wish they hadn’t needed to.
Similarly with self-defense. If I were to kill someone who was attacking me, it might be reasonable, it might be excusable (it probably would be, in English law, by the by), but it would still be wrong. If I were an extreme pacifist, I would choose the other wrong option in that situation, and let my attacker kill me. However, I, personally, don’t have the guts to be an extreme pacifist.
Let me suggest that a rational and defensible basis for opposition to generalized capital punishment is that life should be taken by the government --state, federal, or township for that matter-- only when it is necessary. Surely there are cases when that necessity can be shown, as when a life prisoner kills in prison. That person has demonstrated that life long imprisonment does not protect society from his criminal behavior. But to take the position that a horrible crime requires the death of the perpetrator is just emotional knee jerk and is unworthy of a rational and civilized state. Rage is not a good basis for public policy, nor is ad hoc sentencing based on how offended some segment of the public might be.
The problem with Urban Ranger’s proposal is that it assumes a Hollywood vision of using a firearm. Shooting somebody under adrenal stress at ranges of 15’ or less to stop or kill is difficult enough. Explicitly attempting to shoot to disable reduces the chance of stopping the attacker to the point of futility.
A traditionally trained user hits, anywhere on the target, with only 3 in 10 rounds under adrenal stress at ranges under 15’. An untrained user hits, which includes the VAST majority of people, hits, again anywhere on the target, with only 1 in 10 rounds. Consider that most civilian available firearms have 11 or less rounds, and it seems likely that using your firearm and emptying the magazine will result in 1 hit somewhere on the target, i.e. not necessarily in a kill zone or landing a disabling wound.
Also, a shot to the leg isn’t nearly as disabling as one might think under these circumstances. Were I to simply walk up to you and shoot you you’d likely fall over. But due to the life and death circumstances the criminal is under the adrenaline rush as much as you, and he is in fight mode… even more so now that his life is in immediate danger of ending and he has no means to flee (having been shot in the leg), so he will fight and fight hard to live. Tragically ironic, yes, but dangerous for the defender, more so then necessary.
Plus, lets not forget that we have two other concepts at play. First, it is the criminal unlawful and unethical attack which puts the innocent defender into the position of having to decide whether to kill or not. He is the one putting their lives in the balance, if not for his attack he would not be facing down an armed defender. Second, from a societal view, what lives are in the balance? A rapist and, more than likely, a lawabiding member of society. Which person most contributes to a peaceful productive society? If we absolutely had to choice between the rapist and the defender who should society pick? The answer is clear if an answer is necessary.
And someone is also bound to point out that a small number of people have been cleared after conviction by DNA testing. To which my answer is, well, they shouldn’t have been convicted, then, should they?
[/hijack]
And, to second what Glitch said, it is naive to the point of ridiculous to shoot to wound. Almost the first rule of firearms for self-defense is never to point a gun at something you are not willing to kill.
No, they shouldn’t have been convicted, and the fact that they were and in some cases came within hours of execution indicates that there may be something wrong with the system. How can “they shouldn’t have been convicted” be an argument for the death penalty?
