Shade, this does not help. I can accept killing is wrong as a general statement. That generally appears to me to be a reasonable position to hold. However, are you saying that killing in self defense is wrong also, but is a lesser wrong than getting assaulted, so it is ok to kill someone to avoid getting raped?
If this is your position, it break down here: When you kill someone in self-defense, you do not KNOW what you are stopping. maybe the attacker is just going to give you a black eye and steal your wallet. You are killing someone because of what you think MIGHT happen. How is this a lesser wrong?
To start with, I do not oppose the DP in principle. I do oppose the DP in practice.
I think that there is considerable difference between an individual in an immediate life and death struggle and society eliminating a violent criminal. In order for them to be truly equivalent, or to claim that society is simply defending itself, then I think that society would need to be in immediate danger of destruction or serious injury if not for the DP. That’s isn’t to say there isn’t good reasons for the DP, at least IMO in principle, but equating it to self defense is not one of them.
Also, self defense is a matter of biological/psychological imperative. Society has no such biological survival instinct. You could say that society may evolve into such a thing that it has a collective will to survive. I can’t, example, imagine the USA rolling over and playing dead against a foreign invader. But I’m not a socialogist. I’m not going to pretend to understand those conditions or effects.
Ultimately, self defense to the death is not difficult to justify even ignoring the overpowering instrinct to live. Combat medics use a similar process. Save those most capable of being saved. Value the lives of those you can save over those you can’t. Who is the more valuable member of society? The defender or the attacker? The defender may be a scumbag, but more than likely is just another decent member of society. The attacker has placed himself into the outcast category, placed himself apart by his actions. Yes, there are numerous forces that may have resulted in somebody finding themselves in that position, but at that moment in times those are less relevent. Two lives are on the scales, and somebody lives and somebody dies and some choice must be made as to the value. The defender is innocent and so the scales shift in their favour. They are the more valuable person to society because they aren’t out violently attacking other people (so what if the defender is a mass murderer? I guess it would be a wash but I’m ignoring the silly extreme examples that show nothing).
The DP is not so simple. It lacks the immediacy, it lacks the biological need and it lacks a clear triage ideology to weighing the life of the attacker. I agree that there is a weighing. The weight of the life of the attacker vs the risks mentioned above. Even then it gets more complicated because there is an effect on us, as a society, for being willing to put people to death, but that is tangetal to the OP. Ultimately, practically no comparision can be made between self defense and the DP unless a socialogist wants to chime in about “living society”.
This is a specious argument, culture. As glitch illustrated, you defend yourself to stop the attack, not necessarily to kill. The attacker may or may not die, but as was also pointed out, the attacker assumes a risk there.
The point being, you don’t defend yourself because of “what you think might happen”, you defend yourself against what actually IS happening. Usually that means a larger or armed attacker.
So, individuals who defend themselves are not fighting against a possibility, they are fighting against an actuality. Only *society * defends itself against a possibility, when it avers that Capital Punishment protects society against recidivism. As has been pointed out, there are other, effective means of achieving the same aim.
For individuals to reap the benefits of society, then Society must be greater than any individual in all respects. Some actions for which a human might be forgiven - such as taking a life in self-defense - should be forbidden Society as a whole.
I’m not a huge fan of the fellow in Rome, but I admired his turn of phrase when he warned us about what we become when we allow ourselves as a Society to take the easy route - we become a “Culture of Death.” That’s a fine epithet for a people.
Self defense utilizing deadly force requires a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary to protect one’s life. It doesn’t require that that belief be correct, only reasonable under the circumstances.
So killing in self-defense in the belief that you might be injured or killed is justified, but CP in the belief than a criminal might commit a future injury or death is not?
Let’s be honest, it is reasonable to expect that many CP candidates will commit injuries (to guards or other inmates) during their life-long incarcerations that you want to give them.
No, let’s really be honest: the guards have the option at any time to walk away from their job to realize their destiny as future Einsteins :rolleyes: ; which leaves us finally with your humanitarian concern that un-executed “candidates” will harm other inmates?
We’ve boiled the whole argument down to your fear for the safety of the “good” inmates?
The entire DP discussion points to one primary flaw in our legal system that requires fixing before the DP is a viable option. Certainty. The suspected murderer is almost alway going to profess his innocence regardless of the penalty.
Idea : thorough interrogation of both suspect AN witnesses to crime, open and documented evidence collection, to include all laboratory work. By open I mean either televised (a new “Reality” show perhaps?) or available on the internet.
Thorough interrogation to mean administration of sodium pentathol (and/or truth drug of choice) and true psychology (also to be televised).
The goal of this is to leave no doubt as to the truth of the witnesses/law enforcement officers (arresting officials) or the guilt / innocence of the accused. This would seriously decrease time to trial, litigation, deliberation (legal fees too).
End effect : minimal chance of executing/incarcerating an innocent. Shoots the appeals process in the foot too.
Of course this goes against the fifth ammendment, but is the 5th such a good idea when dealing with violent criminals?
I know its also OT, but the DP was being kicked around so much that the focus seemed to be shifting.
OT : self defense in a potential Life or Death situation cannot possibly be compared intellegently with the death penalty. Emotion is the true enemy of justice, emotion is the friend of survival.
For the record, I’m anti-DP. I have no problem with killing, or even the state killing people who have committed crimes heinous enough to warrant it.
The trick is figuring out who those people are and making sure that we don’t kill any innocents while we’re at it. I’ve seen enough evidence that we have done a piss-poor job at that task to say that the use of capital punishment by the state is unjustified, even immoral.
I’m sure this is where people start throwing in hypotheticals about the ‘perfect’ conviction, but I do not believe that any number of these overcome the flaws inherent in the system. And exceptions are a pretty bad basis for the rule of law.
[QUOTE=rimshotgdansk]
No, let’s really be honest: the guards have the option at any time to walk away from their job to realize their destiny as future Einsteins :rolleyes: ; which leaves us finally with your humanitarian concern that un-executed “candidates” will harm other inmates?
[QUOTE]
Are you suggesting prisons without guards, are are you suggesting that if someone chooses to be a guard you do not care if they get injured :rolleyes: ?
I’m suggesting neither, and you know it (or should). I am suggesting that your argument against incarceration as an alternative to CP - “Risk that the next Eistein is wasting his time as a prison guard rather than finding the GUT” is laughable. Or at least worthy of :rolleyes:
Do you really need me to list some of the reasons why this statement of yours is ridiculous?
I beg to differ. According to the BLS (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos156.htm) there are 457,000 corrections officers on the US. While this cannot be proven, doesn’t it seeem reasonable that they have somthing more to offer society that spending their life guard the dregs of society? Yes, it is unlikely that any one is the next Einstein, but there is no doubt that any other job will offer greater good to the whole of society relative to what they are doing today.
And yes, I realize most COs do not guard death row inmates. However, the arguement still holds.
Make it “the state has a better alternative than killing criminals, and the moral obligation to avail itself of it”, and that pretty much works for me.
OT: Whoo-hoo! 200 posts! I’m gonna go out and celebrate with a Slurpy!
Are you just shit-stirring, or do you truly not understand. There would be guards in prisons and there would still be prisons and prisoners regardless of DP. All those evil pot-smokers and petty thieves; unless you are suggesting that these too are eligible for the DP?
Besides, Corrections Officer is just a job, just like Sanitation Engineers, and Shopping Mall Security Guards (which is probably where a bounch of out-of-work CO’s would seek employment.)
[QUOTE=Erasticity]
Are you just shit-stirring, or do you truly not understand. There would be guards in prisons and there would still be prisons and prisoners regardless of DP. All those evil pot-smokers and petty thieves; unless you are suggesting that these too are eligible for the DP?QUOTE]
If you would read my complete post, you would note the following sentence, which I think answers your question:
And yes, I realize most COs do not guard death row inmates. However, the arguement still holds.
As an aside, I think you are supporting my point. Most sanitation engineers in my firm hold B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engineering, and are licensed to practice in their field after passing two 8-hour tests. They design the systems that disposes of $%^& from your house and make sure it is fit to dump into the rivers you swim in and get drinking water out of. I think they contribute signficantly to the quality of life that we enjoy as a society. I would much rather have CO working in engineering and improving the quality of out life than wasting their time guarding losers.
And yes, pot smokers shoud not be in jail, but what the heck does that have to do with what we are talking about?