Not true. It’s only to legally kill people who vote ‘no’. If you decide to vote ‘no’ then it’s on you.
I didn’t say or suggest that only prosecutors have peremptory strikes. But if jury pools are drawn randomly from yes and no voters, on average there will be more yes voters in our hypothetical jury pool than no voters. An equal number of peremptory strikes on each side will only tilt the balance further from its starting place, so they further disadvantage the already marginalized group of no voters.
If voting history can be used to eliminate people for cause, we’d have to know the rules about striking people for cause. Just let me suggest that the majority voters are more likely to protected by such rules in a “perfect democracy” than the minority view. So. chances are that permissible strikes for cause based on voting records probably means that the jury pool would be entirely yes voters. I don’t understand why you don’t believe any jury could be impaneled.
Irony would be if your law were defeated (as the polling results here suggest) and the next vote was on whether to allow open killing of all the previous yes voters because they are destructive would-be thugs or duplicitous cowards.
That would be ironic, however such a law wouldn’t pass unless all the first-round ‘no’ voters are more passionate about vengeance then they are about not killing people.
If the public voting record counts as cause for striking a prospective juror, then the defense can strike any person who voted yes. You would have to find a jury pool composed entirely of abstainers, which might or might not be possible.
There wouldn’t be anyone to seek vengeance upon, because the law wouldn’t have gone into effect and there would have been no extrajudicial killings to avenge. It would be a mechanism to build a society with people who share their values; one that would disadvantage psychos and cowards. If it would make you feel better, perhaps the no-voting majority would propose instead to simply disenfranchise and imprison the yes voters.
Sure there would. All the people who voted ‘yes’ in the first vote.
The people who voted ‘no’ to open killing are now going to turn around and vote ‘yes’ for open killing? I think not.
We don’t know the rules for striking for cause. In a world where everyone has to vote (as the OP clarified later), they can’t strike everyone who votes for either of two options because there are no jurors left, so the rules won’t do that. As I noted, any rules that allow striking someone for cause due to their voting record would probably allow striking only voters who voted no and not voters who voted yes. That is, it would be a rule that protects the majority’s right to serve on a jury without regard to the minority. This is a “perfect democracy” after all. Tyranny of the majority and all that.
No, see, you don’t get it. You just handed guns to murderers. That makes you evil (in the hypothetical). Whether you’re shooting me or some other innocent victim makes a huge difference to the victim, but it is utterly immaterial in what it says about you - you’re facilitating murder either way.
This vote will divide the populace into three groups:
-
People who want to murder others and have every intention of doing so once the barriers come down.
-
People who are willing to drop those barriers as long as those oh-so-trustworthy murderers promise not to come after them next.
-
People who think that facilitating murders is so incredibly immoral that they’re willing to put their lives on the line over it, just to avoid being in group 2.
People who vote ‘no’ aren’t doing it because they want to die. They do it because they think that persons who vote yes are scum. You can’t really expect the fact you voted ‘yes’ to endear you to these people - even if you weren’t victim-blaming them as you are currently doing. (Note that this will happen even if the motion loses - the vote is public and everyone knows who wanted to take the murderers off their leashes.)
The other thing to keep in mind that beyond simple revulsion at your choice, associating you has become actively risky. It’s impossible to tell whether a person is in group 1 or group 2 until they actually murder somebody - which means that every person who voted ‘yes’ will be looked at askance, with everyone wondering if they really are plotting murder, and just haven’t got around to it yet.
And when I say “everyone” will be wondering this, that includes other people who voted “yes”. Because somebody wanted this thing to happen for purely murderous reasons; how do they know it’s not you?
This strikes me as suggesting that any criminal’s defense could strike for cause any person who voted to make the crime they are accused of illegal. It’s nonsense. In a society where everyone votes on all laws, juries are likely to be composed of people who voted FOR the laws that were passed, not those who voted against them or those who abstained. If a person is being tried for stealing a car, the state doesn’t have to find someone who didn’t vote to make stealing a car illegal in order to try him.
But we do know the rules for striking for cause. A jury must be composed of people who have no connection to the case. If a no-voter clearly states on the record that he killed the yes-voter because the yes-voter was a credible threat to him because of voting status, no yes-voters or no-voters can be empaneled, because they each have a de facto personal connection to the case. If law has required everyone to vote, and voter rolls are the standard basis for the jury pool, as they are in this country, no jury can be empaneled and the case will be dismissed on those grounds.
No person has a right to serve on a jury, only a civic duty, otherwise the prosecution and the defense could not strike jurors, peremptorily or for cause, without violation their rights. Only the defendant has a right to a trial by jury of peers.
In other words, while the letter of the law makes it legal for yes-voters to kill no-voters, the effect of the law ends up making it legal for no-voters to kill yes-voters by claiming self-defense based on a credible threat. Only killings that can shown without a doubt to be wholly unrelated to voting record can be tried in court.
This kind of question is a demonstration of why pure democracy is such a bad thing. A majority voting for an evil thing doesn’t make it any less evil.
My answer is no. Murder is evil.
How can you be sure that no one “accidentally” kills a “yes” voter?
I would assume the referendum is a public vote with no secret ballot, so that it is known who voted yes and who voted no, and when someone gets murdered afterwards, the name could be checked against the lists. Only if it were a “Yes” voter who killed a “No” voter would the murder be deemed legal.
(Assuming the “Yes” vote prevailed in the election)
Edit: Or, if it were dressed up to look as an accident, then it might still be prosecuted according to manslaughter or unintentional-death laws.
Yes, there is. The downside is that a horrible, reprehensible, evil law will be passed, leading to a great deal of horrible, reprehensible, evil killing.
And I’m not volunteering to be killed. I’m trying to stop myself from being killed, in the only sensible way possible: By voting against the law that would allow anyone to be killed. If the measure fails, then I’m safe, and voting “no” is what makes the measure fail.
You’re asking me to trust in the goodwill, restraint, and/or morality of millions and millions of strangers. A large chunk of these strangers put Donald Trump in office. Yeah, I don’t think so. I just don’t have that much faith in human nature. I’m voting yes as purely a defensive measure. I have no intention of killing anyone, but I’m not opening myself up to being killed by any Cletus with a pickup and a gun rack.
You think voting yes is a defensive measure?
OK, let’s say that Proposition 1 passes. Within a week after it goes into effect, it’s unanimous: Everyone in the country now voted yes. And then there’s a new initiative on the ballot:
Proposition 2: Every right-handed voter who voted “yes” on this proposition is now entitled to kill any left-handed person, or any person who did not vote “yes” on this proposition. Shall the proposition pass? (YES/NO)
Obviously the left-handed folks are going to vote against this, but how should right-handed folks vote? Clearly, there’s no downside for them to vote “yes”, because if they do, they won’t get murdered.
And as soon as that one passes 90%-10%, comes Proposition 3:
Proposition 3: Every heterosexual voter who voted “yes” on this proposition is now entitled to kill any homosexual person, or any person who did not vote “yes” on this proposition. Shall the proposition pass? (YES/NO)
Continue with as many other minority groups as you see fit. How many propositions do you think it’ll take before one of those minority categories includes you? How many before everyone starts ignoring the rule of law and everyone is killing everyone?
Again, my vote would change if the people being killed were chosen because of a feature they had no control over. It the law was vote yes to kill black people and no voters then you have to vote no to protect people who don’t have a choice. In this case, the law is asking people if they want to sacrifice themselves to potential sociopath and there is no moral obligation to stop people from sacrificing themselves.
OK, then, make propositions 2, 3, and 4 socialists, trade unionists, and Jews.
I would like to take manson1972’s argument a bit further in exploration: It makes sense to vote against the referendum if there is a good chance it will fail, since it failing is in the interests of all of society. But once or if it has become clear that the referendum is going to pass (let’s say, it’s got an overwhelming majority,) is there still any rational reason to vote “no” (other than if you are simply a super-principled person who would rather die than vote for something wrong?)
But also…most people **don’t **naturally hanker to murder other people. Even if it were legal for Yes voters to murder No voters, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there would be widespread killing - people aren’t just sitting around, itching to murder, and waiting for the murder to become legal so they can finally “get murder out of their system” (unless some diehard Klansman decided to find black people who voted No and thus get away with legally reducing the black population or something)
Most people aren’t inclined to murder, but a very few are. Ordinarily, those few are kept in line by the law and the potential for punishment. But if this measure passed, you’d have some people who would murder any NO voter they could find who happened to be of a particular demographic they disliked, and some who would murder any individual they happened to dislike for other reasons if they also happened to be a NO voter, and some who would just murder all of the NO voters they could just because they can. With no legal repercussions for these folks, it’d add up to a very impressive kill count.
There would also be a large number of murders of YES voters, by folks who were under the mistaken impression that they were NOs. Sure, these folks would get prosecuted by the law, but their victims would still be dead.