Crime should be defined as the abridgement of rights. No crime, then, would be victimless.
No one is entitled by God or nature to bend the consent of anyone else who is already behaving ethically. They are not entitled even if they are the Chief Magistrate. Even if scribbles in ancient documents authorize it. Even if nine hundred and ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of a million authorize it. Even if everybody authorizes it.
A man who abridges the rights of another man forfeits his own, by his voluntary decision to define rights arbitrarily.
Those who abridge rights should be forced to recompense their victims and restore them to their state prior to the tyranny, and their contract with their government should be voided because they stand in breach. As to what is fair retaliation when a victim cannot be restored, let the victim decide this.
What I’m about to suggest sounds barbarous, but it makes ense: instead of imprisoning murderes, or killing them, subject then to an operation which will render them blind. Then, they will be unable to kill again, and yet would retain a measure of freedom. Also, they would have to support themselves-no nice prisons with workout rooms, TV, etc. Sounds horrible-but makes sense.
Lib, I totally agree with you, however, it usually takes an element of extreme heinousness to get the DP. Hence, my suggestion on the other thread as possibly the “next best thing” for those who don’t get the DP.
Lib, this thread inspired me to do some reading on the subject of libertarian approaches to criminal justice, and I found something of interest here: http://www.prolibertate.org/english/justice1.htm
If you deprive another of their life, yes, you should pay with own. In simpler times maybe you could be deprived of your TV too. Not today. The Laws and the court systems are too complicated!
Forget vengeance, forget restitution, forget punishment. Forget making it too complicated. That’s what got us into this mess. “KISS” it. (Keep It Simple Stupid!)
In depriving another of life, you have committed the ultimate crime against humanity; against every person on this planet. The party’s over. Go home.
KISS – what an admirable basis for a system of justice. Let us abandon all of those complicated measures which we have developed to deal with the complex realities of teh world and replace them with simple, mindless and arbitrary punishments. Simple answers to complex questions may not yield justice, but they will help simple folk feel better.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
I argued for the DP for thirty years, but recently I’ve begun to wonder. If it is wrong for an individual to commit murder, how is it right for the state to do so? Should the state not set a better example in how to deal with those you have problems with?
I thought the “eye for an eye” philosophy was replaced by “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. I’m not a Christian, but I always thought that was a heck of a good way to think.
If you won’t question what you think, why call it thinking?
The problem with “Those who abridge rights should be forced to recompense their victims and restore them to their state prior to the tyranny” is that even if you catch me for stealing this pencil and I am made to return it, how about all of the other pencils I’ve stolen and not gotten busted for. The punishment for a crime should not be based so much on the specifics of the crime, but that a crime was committed. In this situation I would need to be punished for stealing, not for the absence of the pencil which I perpetrated upon you. The pencil is insignificant and any punishment derived from its value would also be insignificant whereas the punishment for stealing might result in a deterent effect for others and me.
“and their contract with their government should be voided because they stand in breach.” What would this entail exactly? Strip the SOB and throw him to the wolves? Once someone is excluded from recognition by society could someone else then be punished for abusing him? The assertion that this could work at all is false. There must be a social contract which contains a definition of offenses and the requisit punishment.
“as to what is fair retaliation when a victim cannot be restored, let the victim decide this.” Should this be limited to what’s reasonable or just a blank check? Who is to decide what’s reasonable? If the victim is some sort of bleeding heart, does the drunk driver go free?
“Crime should be defined as the abridgement of rights. No crime, then, would be victimless.” Who would be the victim in the case of drunk driving if the drunk doesn’t actually kill anyone tonight. It’s a certainty that given enough time, someone who continually drives drunk is going to kill someone. The only way to create a deterrent is to make the punishment sooooo bad that noone would ever even consider driving drunk. Not such a bad idea actually. I believe that’s the way it works in Germany.
MAT 5:38-39, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.”
Hmmm, it don’t say nuthin’ about the DP, now does it?
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000
Right! Like the mass murder is likely to follow a good example set by anyone! Individual or State!
The state has a responsibility to protect society - us. To make sure killers are never let loose on us again, whether they use the DP or life without parole. Do you really think the state
turning the other cheek" is what you want?
Didn’t the murderer decide his own fate. It is no secret that the punishment for murder is sometimes death.
Isn’t it just a roll of the dice for him. To get caught or not to get caught.
He /she dragged humanity back thousands of years to the animal instincts .
Since we appear to be expressing our personal opinions here, I shall express mine.
A person who commits a serious violent crime proves himself insane. After taking reasonable measures to protect myself, I view the person as ill, and I have pity on him or her, and I have no thirst for vengance.
At our current primitive level of psychological knowlege, it is probably impossible to assure a cure, and lifetime segregation is thus inevitable. I pity such necessity.
Answering questions before they’ve been asked:
No, I have not been a victim of a violent crime.
Yes, people close to me have been victims of violent crime.
Yes, I probably would become insane with anger should one of my children be murdered.
Yes, I would kill to protect myself or my children; however I doubt I would have the means to do so.
Yes, I’m a bleeding-heart liberal, and damn proud of it.
He’s the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armor, shouting ‘All Gods are Bastards!’
