Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Evan van Eyk]

As I said above, that I also often think, why not kill those bastards, when I hear about a terrible crime in my country ( child abuse or something ) or see the crimes of war criminals ( in Kosovo, etc. ). But at least till now I always reconsidered and remembered my principles of non-violence ( excluding self-defense, or defense of others ).
Confronted with such a situation I hope that I would keep my reason and stick with thos principles. But hoping is the only thing I can do, because its hard to just "talk" about it, without being in the situation ( gladly ). But I'll probably at least consider it for a while.

But back to my former argument - the natural law. The human rights were defined natural in the age of enlightenment, John Lock wrote about it and there was also a French philosopher. Later there was Kant who wrote about moral withe the 'Category Imperative' ( would be too long to explain that ) and if I remember right it was also said in the Declaration of Independece, that these are rights which cannot be taken by government or anybody else, and therefore as the English King tried to take them, the American people had the duty to throw off his government and create an own state. Many wars were fought over this issue, the Civil War of 1861 ( against slavery ), and if I am not wrong WWII, either. And there were the Wars in Jugoslavia.
So at least some people think it is a worthy idea, but what I do not understand is that a country which fights tyranny in the name of human rights and justice, can in the same way kill people, who commited crime. Even war Criminals are no longer executed, today. Perhaps one should reconsider in US and other countries with capital punishment.

------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de



[This message has been edited by Evan van Eyk (edited 09-08-2001).]

[Evan van Eyk]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:

The 'right to live' is clearly NOT "natural," but is, in effect, a rule agreed upon by the majority of society.

Since it is society which created the right, it is society which can deny it.</font>

No it can't, because all people are equal. Who wants to decide which part of the people keeps its rights and which not. today its the criminals, but tomorrow it may be other people who harm society, e.g. disabled or whatever. You have to decide for one thing - whether you grant human rights, or not. But there can be no mixture, because that would arbitry and there can be justifications for almost every crime to commit if you do not have a frim principle.



------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[First of Two]

Aha! Backpedaling!

We see several statements by the anti-death-penalty folks above which indicate that they are not opposed to the use of lethal force in self-defense.

But what is execution BUT the use of lethal force in self-defense?

The only difference is that execution is the COLLECTIVE employment of deadly force rather than the INDIVIDUAL use.

Now, given the choice between ONE man acting alone in a split-second, and TWELVE who must reach a consensus who have all the time in the world to reach a verdict, WHICH is more likely to come to a just decision?

Believing in an individual's right to defend itself, but NOT believing in society's right to defend itself, is hypocracy. It is the calling-card of the Anarchist. (And anarchists are idiots, but that's a debate for another thread.)

The individual has the right to defend himself against other individuals. This is the basic right of self-defense.

ADDITIONALLY...

The individual (or the small collective) has the right to defend him(it)self against a society gone bad. (So yes, the Jews had the right to defend themselves in Nazi Germany)

Society has the right to defend itself against dangerous societies. (So the rest of the world has the right to defend itself against Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, and Invading Extraterrestrials)

Society has the right to defend itself against dangerous individuals. (So we have the right to eliminate individual threats like murderers, terrorists, etc.)

Someone foolishly brought up Hitler.

Consider the following:
Hitler was convicted of Treason in the "Beer Hall Putsch." He was sentenced to 5 years, during which he wrote the excremental "Mein Kampf."

If Germany had had the death penalty for Treason... what would have happened to WWII and the Holocaust?

Granted, that's an extreme case. Nevertheless, the question exists.

[Dan Stack]

NO, I'm not back-pedalling. Self-defense. You have no choice. The situation is out of your control. If I had a magic phaser set on stun, I'd use it. But I'd use whatever force I had available to preserve my own life. And I believe that is ethically acceptable.

A convict whose movements I can control? Lock him up and throw away the key. But now society is in control. Hence the difference. I'm still (as society) using the means at my disposal to control the criminal. I now have more means at my disposal. How am I back-pedalling?

I believe this is my last reply if the tone here continues to lose its civility. I view use of words like "back-pedalling" and "bleeding heart" as name-calling. I have not called people in favor of capital punishment any names I intended to be hurtful. If any words I have spoken were taken as such I apologize.

[This message has been edited by Dan Stack (edited 09-08-2001).]

[Evan van Eyk]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by First of Two:
Aha! Backpedaling!

We see several statements by the anti-death-penalty folks above which indicate that they are not opposed to the use of lethal force in self-defense.

But what is execution BUT the use of lethal force in self-defense?

Now, given the choice between ONE man acting alone in a split-second, and TWELVE who must reach a consensus who have all the time in the world to reach a verdict, WHICH is more likely to come to a just decision?

If Germany had had the death penalty for Treason... what would have happened to WWII and the Holocaust?

Granted, that's an extreme case. Nevertheless, the question exists.</font>

Well but what you do not see is that using lethal force does not neccessarily mean to kill somebody. Its probably enough to wound a person to stop an attack. And what I meant was, e.g. if you see a person threatening others with a weapon. Than you may of course take means to stop him ( which does not mean to kill the person ), because at this moment the only chance to prevent innocent from being hurt is to stop the person before it can react. That can result in death, but it is not intentional.
And nobody said it would be just to do so. But it is natural to defend oneself or others in a critical situation.
But it is not natural if you kill people if not in a critical situation. And execution is certainly no act of self-defense. How do you defend against somebody who is weaponless, locked up in a small room and guarded by several security personal members? that's a real tough task, if you ask me.


Concerning the hitler thing - I believe nothing would have happend because they were very leniand, regarding him more a overeager patriot than traitor - he left his cell only after one year.

But by the way often traitors become heroes. E.G. the Americans were traitors to the British King - now they are a just nation.
( That does NOT mean that I compare Hitler to the US!!! I just want to point out that who is a traitor depends on society, but it should valued by moral!!! )


------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[This message has been edited by Evan van Eyk (edited 09-08-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Evan van Eyk (edited 09-08-2001).]

[Evan van Eyk]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by darkwing duck1:

That attitude simply doesn't square with the facts, folks. Evil exists in the world. You don't try to understand it, or make deals with it. You cannot change it. All you can do is eliminate it wherever it appears.

There have been references made to religion (including Christianity). OK, ask yourself this: was the Jesus who scourged the moneychangers from the temple being a pacifist? On the cross, did he release the thief from his death sentance (which the thief admitted was a just punishment for his crimes)? No to both examples.

When he returns to the Earth, will he be coming to negotiate or to try to understand the wicked? No, he will be returning with a sword, and an army of angels, and he will smite down the wicked until (to use the image used in Revelations) "the blood flows to the level of the bridles of the horses".
</font>

But killing people does not take evil it only creates more suffering ( see my arguments about mercy and revenge ). Do any of you ever think about the relatives of the criminal - how they feel when they see that person killed. Maybe they want to revenge too? Violence only leads to a vicious circle.

Reagrding you two examples with Jesus. Of course the answer is no, because it was his task to redeem mankind frm death and sin rescuing a thief was not neccessary and second it was Earth's justice but he was from God's Realm ( do not know if it's correctly translated ) and so would impose God's justice.

Considering you third point of Jesus: No he would not try to understand because he already does - he is almighty and knows everything, so there is not need for trying to understand.
And actually it looks a bit arrogant to compare oneself, or society to God, doesn't it?
And still it is said "You shall not kill" and not "Don't kill, except somebody commited crime or the like"
And even if you are not religious, that's a strange argument because if somebody jumps out of the window, do you follow him?
That's what small children do ( not jumping out of the window, of course ). They say: "But he did it too, or he started it".
Its not very convincing if you choose the same method for punishing people.
He killed somebody, so we do so too.
One should assume that adult and enlighted people could do better.


------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[darkwing duck1]

OK, maybe "bleeding heart" was a bit much (not that it was directed at you, Dan), but there is an attitude that some people cannot seem to break themselves of that "if we only CARE a little more, if we're only a little more UNDERSTANDING, that theres good in EVERYONE if we only look for it"...

That attitude simply doesn't square with the facts, folks. Evil exists in the world. You don't try to understand it, or make deals with it. You cannot change it. All you can do is eliminate it wherever it appears.

There have been references made to religion (including Christianity). OK, ask yourself this: was the Jesus who scourged the moneychangers from the temple being a pacifist? On the cross, did he release the thief from his death sentance (which the thief admitted was a just punishment for his crimes)? No to both examples.

When he returns to the Earth, will he be coming to negotiate or to try to understand the wicked? No, he will be returning with a sword, and an army of angels, and he will smite down the wicked until (to use the image used in Revelations) "the blood flows to the level of the bridles of the horses".

In a perfect world there would be no need for captial punishment. In a perfect world, there would be no one committing capital crimes. But we don't live in a perfect world, and we have to do what we have to do in order to establish justice and protect society. That means making sure that capital criminals pay the ultimate price for their crimes.

------------------
Deo Vindice!

[darkwing duck1]

"Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. Obviously the Old Testament Israelis killed many many people at God's command. The proper translation is "Thou shalt not murder."

[Evan van Eyk]

Well, the hebraic word is kill not murder

------------------
"I am a great one for rushing in where angels fear to tread." - Cpt. Kirk, Star Trek VI


www.farrealms.de

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster