Perhaps my question is poorly posed. But my point is, if the judicial system (as flawed as it may be), cannot be trusted to accurately sort out guilt or innocence, how can an individual be trusted to sort out the same thing in a few seconds in a dark room? If I believe that it is ok for me to kill someone who I believe is going to injury me with only a few seconds to think about it, how can I in turn argue that it is not ok for the court to kill someone because they may be wrong, even after a series of trials lasting years?
This is my point. There is also a practical alternative to killing your (potential) attacker. You could do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek. The fact is, in the vast majority of assaults, the victim is not killed. For example, in 2002 the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/02cius.htm) report that there were 14,054 murders, but 95,136 forcible rapes and 894,348 aggrevated assaults. So if confronted, you had an approximate 0.12% chance of getting killed. Your alternative as a victim is to sit back, take your licks, and let the police settle things later.
I would not do this, but if I believed killing was wrong, or that it was wrong to kill except when guilt is 100.00% certain, how could I kill someone before the crime is even committed?
The court has the luxury of time, which you do not. The court has (presumably and I hope) perfect information as to the perp’s past - all you have is a guess as to his immediate future. The court has options which are not available to you.
Enough people have already adequately defined the difference between self-defense and capital punishment that I won’t belabor it with more exposition.
An hypothetical situation that might get you closer to your point is, "once I have wounded my assailant with my incredibly lucky leg-shot, do I kill? I now have the luxury of time; I have control over the situation; and I can predict with some success what lies in the assailant’s immediate future. Now I am in the same moral situation as the court.
So - do I kill, or not?"
I think that’s the question you’ve been trying to ask.
My answer, for what it’s worth: I do not have the right to take somebody’s life in cold blood. Believing that people form societies in order to raise the human condition, I’m going to hold society to at least the same moral code as I hold myself, and say that society cannot claim the right to take a life in cold blood either.
I guess, succinctly stated, could someone explain to my pea brain:
Why is it acceptable to kill someone to stop a crime, but not to punish someone for committing a crime?
I suspect close universal agreement on this board that it is acceptable for a woman to kill someone to prevent being forcibly raped (a crime that is not even a DP crime) but significant opposition to killing someone who murdered 20 children. This makes no sense to me. Then, as has been pointed out elsewhere, I am not very smart.
Just to be clear, this is definitely not the question I am asking, but I would agree it would be wrong (generally) to kill in this situation. However, let’s change your scenario a little:
Your gunman is down, after killing the rest of your family. Do you kill him? I agree this would be illegal, but would it be wrong? I suspect, for me (and many others), it would turn out he died in the gunfight after a luck shot to the head.
BTW, I guess I should point out the obvious, I am a DP supporter.
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
[quote]
Your gunman is down, after killing the rest of your family. Do you kill him?
[/quote)
Nope. Or, at least, I hope not. As I said above, I believe it would be wrong for me to take someone’s life in cold blood. I can only hope I would be strong enough to live up to that standard, and I’m extremely grateful never to have been tested against it.
I am, too! I make my living in the Data Processing field. But that’s another conversation, isn’t it? 
Aaaargh! Damned fat fingers!
Nope. Or, at least, I hope not. As I said above, I believe it would be wrong for me to take someone’s life in cold blood. I can only hope I would be strong enough to live up to that standard, and I’m extremely grateful never to have been tested against it.
I am, too! I make my living in the Data Processing field. But that’s another conversation, isn’t it?
Because if you don’t kill a convicted murderer, and imprison him for the life, there’s a small chance he’ll kill another prisoner or a guard, and you lose out on some retribution. If you don’t kill an intuder coming at you in a dark room, you are likely to be raped or killed.
IMO killing a murderer is better than a murderer killing you. So you can’t take a chance. But killing a murderer is NOT better than imprisoning a murderer. Am I explaining this well enough?
It’s the urgency of the situation. In a self defense situation the harm is immediate. If you shoot an intruder you reasonably thought was going to rape or kill you, advances on you despite warnings, etc. The intruder turns out to be a drunk who accidentally broke into your house because he thought it it was his own. That’s tragic, but it was not preventable. You couldn’t have known it wasn’t an attacker and you couldn’t be asked to risk your life on the small chance that it was not. The difference between an individual wrongfully shooting someone when acting in reasonable self defense and the government wrongfully executing someone is that the latter is preventable.
Should have previewed. The second sentence should read “Let’s say you shoot an intruder you reasonably thought was going to rape or kill you, advances on you despite warnings, etc.”
It comes down to alternatives… If the alternative to killing in self defense is allowing yourself to be violently attacked, then killing in self defense is fine. If the alternative to shooting is simply closing your front door, leaving the attacker locked outside, then killing is (or at least, should be) wrong.
Individuals in situations like you have describes have frightfully few acceptable alternatives to killing.
The government always has the alternative of Life without Parole, which IMHO, is a perfectly acceptable alternative to the DP.
Perhaps this would help to clarify it for you culture. It is an example from real life, my life to be exact.
I was many years ago stabbed in the back by a junkie. I spun fought with him and in the ended up bracing his head against a brick wall, punched him in the head and fractured his skull. I was attempting to kill him, although he did survive. With the burnout that comes after the adrenal rush I made it maybe a dozen steps away and collapsed. Survived, obviously, thanks to somebody call the police, who in turn called for an ambulance.
Was I wrong to try to kill him? Not a chance. There was no opportunity for me to do anything except fight, and it was life and death so there is nothing for me to do except fight at the same end of the force spectrum as my opponent. I.e. at the lethal end. To do anything else is to reduce my chances of survival. This would not be something that would be fair to force somebody to do. I shouldn’t have to reduce my chances to live because of somebody elses decision to attack me with lethal force.
How is that different than the death penalty? I was not punishing him. I was not getting revenge. I was not attempting to protect society. I was not attempting to deter others for taking the same action. My goal was pure, personal survival. The first four are the supposed reasons/goals for the DP. Self Defense and the death penalty are not the same because they have different goals.
That is the difference.
Glitch,
I am glad to hear your survived, and hope I would do as well in your situtation (Though I hope I never find out). I fully support your actions.
I disagree that the goals are signficantly different in the sense you mentioned. Your goal was self-preservation. Societies goal for the DP should (and I believe generally is) also be self-preservation. The goals you mentioned (Punishment, protecting society, detering others) are actions for society’s self-defense. One could even make an arguement for vengence being self-defense, though I feel this would be weak.
When acting in self-defense, the outcome is that you might kill someone without any signficant review or consideration of your actions. In imposing the DP, death is handed down after careful review of the evidence, by multiple parties, over long period of time, with the input of the accused. It seems to me, that if the DP is immoral, so is killing is self-defense, unless you know absolutely, with certainty, in advance, that the alternative is your death. Without this information, killing in self-defense cannot be justified over the DP. It seems to me, it is much easier to justify the DP than SD.
How does Life without Parole fail to preserve society? If Glitch held back in his defensive effort, he could very easily have been injured further. If society holds back and applies Life rather than the DP, how are we at further risk?
Obviously, here we start to rehash old arguements that will never be completed. Some obvious answers (I know the rebuttals already):
Risk to society:
- Risk to guards (P.S., I should mention I participated in a trial in a case involving a prison guard was permanently disabled in a prison attack).
- Economic loss in housing inmates for life terms.
- Risk of escape.
- Risk of parole or pardon.
- Risk of future inmates thinking society is soft on crime.
- Risk that the next Eistein is wasting his time as a prison guard rather than finding the GUT.
- The government imprisioning people is no better than individuals imprisioning people. This could lead to higher rates of kidnapping. Sorry, just kidding, I could not resist.
Risk to inmate:
- Execution of the innocent. This is real, and it might very likely have happened. However, how is the different from the individual killing in self-defense? Glitch’s attacked might have been guilty of nothing (innocent by reason of insanity), yet Glitch could have killed him.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention the deterrant to future criminals of knowing they might be killed. Not that I think that works, but I would have said it’s one of the best arguments.
culture: so, your agument is roughly “The risk is greater that a non-executed criminal will directly or indirectly kill someone else than that you will execute an innocent person.”
Does it help your understanding to know a lot of people disagree with you that the risk is greater? For that matter, if it could be shown that the risk of escape, prison murder, etc, was low enough, would you change your mind?
That topic has been dealt with before, does anyone have a link?
No, my QUESTION is:
For those of you who believe the DP is wrong, but killing in self defense is not, why is it acceptable to kill in self-defense, but not as a judicially imposed sentence for a crime?
The rest of this stuff is best raised in another thread.
For those of you who believe the DP is wrong, but killing in self defense is not, why is it acceptable to kill in self-defense, but not as a judicially imposed sentence for a crime?
Because killing is in general wrong; killing in self-defense prevents a greater wrong, but killing in DP doesn’t.
Does that help? Didn’t we explain this before?
Let me just go down the list by number:
- Does adding a couple of hundred prisoners from Death Row to the population at large really increase this risk?
- There is also significant economic loss with the DP because of the lengthy appeals process. A process necessary because of the irreversable nature of the punishment. A process that actually costs more than housing a prisoner for life.
- This is a real risk, of course, of the 2 million people behind bars, very few actually manage to escape.
- If the punishment is Life without Parole, there is no such risk.
- There is no evidence I know of that shows the DP is a true deterrent
6-7) Ok, I can’t refute these at all
The last one, I cannot believe that you actually can’t see the difference between killing someone who is violently attacking you and executing an innocent person. Note, please, that you DO actually need a valid reason to kill in self defense. If you do not have a valid reason, you can be put on trial for murder. The description “killing in self defense” assumes that you were at risk, and the person you killed was the person who was threatening you.
Let me go for one last analogy here, then I’m done. The captured killer in prison is like an attacker tied to a chair. Yes, he might, possibly, potentially, be able to attack you and hurt you, but it’s highly unlikely. Do you really need to shoot him dead to stay safe? Would you be justified?
Put him in jail, he ceases to be an active threat, killing is not necessary.