The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[MMI]

I have never minded being in a minority, but I do not accept that minority views are inherently dubious, and I reject the idea that they should not be acted upon because they are minority views, in the same way that I reject the notion that, because the majority supports a particular policy, that policy is necessarily right.

moreover, you seem to be getting confused between the penal system, an artificial construct intended to inflict retrospective punishment as an approximation to justice, and justice itself.

I confess to being confued by that comment. First of all, "system of justice" and terms like it are frequently used to mean "penal system", and that has happened often in this thread. Next, we are discussing whether a legal system should impose the death penalty for certain crimes: should the death penalty be available under English Law (see OP)? I have expressed my opinion that it should not. Others have expressed a different view, but both arguments are relevant to the original question. To use your words, we have stated what we believe is an appropriate retrospective punishment to inflict upon killers; and we have expressed those views based upon our individual philosophies about justice.

So, I'm afraid I have missed your point.


Regarding the booby-trapped car, the fact that there are other ways to prevent it being stolen makes the deliberate choice to install a booby-trap an act of pre-meditated murder, if the thief is killed thereby - and, for all I know, one of attempted murder if he survives. It can never be legitimate to attempt to prevent a crime by the unlawful killing of the perpetrator. That's what.

What is more, in this example, the destruction of the car while the thief is being killed demonstrates that the motive is to kill rather than to stop theft.

I do not think it is appropriate to compare acts of war (which are not crimes) with criminal acts. Meanwhile, I think you will find that most national armies are under rules of conduct that prohibit them from using lethal force where there is a chance that innocent non-combatants will be harmed, unless they are themselves under immediate threat. Speculative jamming in order to detonate bombs and kill their manufacturers breaches that rule in that the effects on others cannot be assessed and the immediate threat to the troops is not present.

(Detonating a bomb while the bomber is planting the device might be justifiable if there is no danger to others, but, serendipity aside, if you know when and where a bomber is going to be, you can intercept him before he plants it, at which time it might be unnecessary to kill him.)

[Thorne]

I have never minded being in a minority, but I do not accept that minority views are inherently dubious, and I reject the idea that they should not be acted upon because they are minority views, in the same way that I reject the notion that, because the majority supports a particular policy, that policy is necessarily right.

While being in the majority doesn't make one automatically right, being in the minority doesn't either. However, in our societies what is "right" is more often determined by the majority. Allowing the minority to decide what is right is tantamount to a dictatorship.

Regarding the booby-trapped car, the fact that there are other ways to prevent it being stolen makes the deliberate choice to install a booby-trap an act of pre-meditated murder, if the thief is killed thereby - and, for all I know, one of attempted murder if he survives. It can never be legitimate to attempt to prevent a crime by the unlawful killing of the perpetrator. That's what.

Governments and industries will frequently protect their properties with high-voltage fences, sometimes lethally high. The only reason these are considered acceptable is because they post warnings. So could you accept the idea of protecting your own property by such a system, one which might not be lethal but could be, as long as warnings are posted?

What is more, in this example, the destruction of the car while the thief is being killed demonstrates that the motive is to kill rather than to stop theft.

Not necessarily. You're assuming the trap is designed to kill after the theft, but I can conceive of a thief being injured while stealing the car and, perhaps, passing out while driving away, causing the destruction.

I do not think it is appropriate to compare acts of war (which are not crimes) with criminal acts.

Tell that to the War Crimes Tribunals. Criminal acts during war happen all the time. Usually only the losers are punished for them, though.

Meanwhile, I think you will find that most national armies are under rules of conduct that prohibit them from using lethal force where there is a chance that innocent non-combatants will be harmed, unless they are themselves under immediate threat.

A rather idealistic view. Think of Dresden, or London during the blitz, or Hiroshima, or Nanking. All acts of war which were AIMED at civilians, not at military targets.

Speculative jamming in order to detonate bombs and kill their manufacturers breaches that rule in that the effects on others cannot be assessed and the immediate threat to the troops is not present.

So you're saying that only immediate threats should be acted upon? Or should we accept the methods of most police organizations and only act AFTER the fact? Can we not make a reasonable determination of a threat and act to prevent that threat, as early as possible?

(Detonating a bomb while the bomber is planting the device might be justifiable if there is no danger to others, but, serendipity aside, if you know when and where a bomber is going to be, you can intercept him before he plants it, at which time it might be unnecessary to kill him.)

Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?

[MMI]

While being in the majority doesn't make one automatically right, being in the minority doesn't either. However, in our societies what is "right" is more often determined by the majority. Allowing the minority to decide what is right is tantamount to a dictatorship.

So we agree that what is right does not necessarily depend upon how many people think so

Governments and industries will frequently protect their properties with high-voltage fences, sometimes lethally high. The only reason these are considered acceptable is because they post warnings. So could you accept the idea of protecting your own property by such a system, one which might not be lethal but could be, as long as warnings are posted?

I suggest that the reason they use high voltage fences is to protect the public more than the property. Banks don't protect their safes with such things, nor do gun shops protect their stock that way. Electric fences are usually found where dangerous materials are stored. It is certainly not the intention of the government or of industry in general to eliminate intruders. That's why they post warnings


Not necessarily. You're assuming the trap is designed to kill after the theft, but I can conceive of a thief being injured while stealing the car and, perhaps, passing out while driving away, causing the destruction.

A trap designed to injure and maim indiscriminately is just as bad as a trap designed to kill, and I make no distinction.

Tell that to the War Crimes Tribunals. Criminal acts during war happen all the time. Usually only the losers are punished for them, though.

Criminal acts committed during times of war are still criminal acts. I say again, acts of war are not crimes.

A rather idealistic view. Think of Dresden, or London during the blitz, or Hiroshima, or Nanking. All acts of war which were AIMED at civilians, not at military targets.

I seem to recall some rather famous trials took place in Nuremburg. Maybe the bombing of London was not on the charge sheet. Perhaps because there were other more important charges to dispose of. Perhaps because the leaders of the Allies did not want to draw attention to their own acts of genocide.

I believe I am on record in these threads as denouncing Hiroshima and Nagasake as war crimes. I remember I have said the same about Dresden.

Sometimes it might be difficult to draw that line between a legitimate act of war and a war crime ... on which side did Blitzkrieg fall? ... but the responsibility for deciding falls on the War Crimes Tribunal, not on individuals with axes to grind.

So you're saying that only immediate threats should be acted upon? Or should we accept the methods of most police organizations and only act AFTER the fact? Can we not make a reasonable determination of a threat and act to prevent that threat, as early as possible?

If the methods being employed present a risk of death or injury, then I most certainly am saying that. Who in their right minds advocates detonating bombs at random without regard to the consequences? Terrorists. That's who.

Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?

And that, Thorne, as you well know, is murder

...

[Thorne]

It is certainly not the intention of the government or of industry in general to eliminate intruders. That's why they post warnings

If I put up an electrified fence around my house, with proper warnings posted, how is that any different from what governments do? I'm only protecting the public from the pitfall traps dug in my yard, after all.

I seem to recall some rather famous trials took place in Nuremburg.

Yes, with the loser's on trial, as I said. I don't recall reading of any trials condemning the Russians for the depravities inflicted upon civilians by their soldiers, or the enslavement of prisoners of war. But then, they were on the winning side, weren't they?

Sometimes it might be difficult to draw that line between a legitimate act of war and a war crime ... on which side did Blitzkrieg fall?

Blitzkrieg was a type of warfare, utilizing the speed and maneuverability of armored units. It has nothing to do with war crimes. Allied forces used the same techniques, once they saw how effective they were.

With very few exceptions, actions performed by the winners in the war are not generally treated as war crimes.

Who in their right minds advocates detonating bombs at random without regard to the consequences?

Why do you assume there would be no regard for the consequences? If you assume that the bombs will NOT be found before they are placed at their targets, and you can only prevent that by randomly broadcasting radio waves that MAY detonate some of the bombs, isn't it likely that any damage, and casualties, will be far less than if the terrorists hit their planned target? Plus you are more likely to kill the bomb maker. Another plus.

Personally, I'll go with shooting the SOB while he's still making the bomb. Or is that too soon? After all, manufacturing a bomb is not an immediate threat, is it?

And that, Thorne, as you well know, is murder

Is it? Isn't making a bomb a terrorist act? Basically, an act of war? So killing the terrorist is also an act of war, is it not? Especially if the shooting is done by the police or the military.

[MMI]

Yes, with the loser's on trial, as I said. I don't recall reading of any trials condemning the Russians for the depravities inflicted upon civilians by their soldiers, or the enslavement of prisoners of war. But then, they were on the winning side, weren't they?

I did accept that point in my last post. But the losers were tried for criminal acts, not for prosecuting the war. There is a distinctio

Blitzkrieg was a type of warfare, utilizing the speed and maneuverability of armored units. It has nothing to do with war crimes. Allied forces used the same techniques, once they saw how effective they were.

A genuine act of war, then, and not a war crime.

With very few exceptions, actions performed by the winners in. The war are not generally treated as war crimes.

See above. Generally speaking, genuine acts of war by the losing side are not treated as war crimes either. There is a distinction between acts of war and criminal acts by the combatants

Why do you assume there would be no regard for the consequences? If you assume that the bombs will NOT be found before they are placed at their targets, and you can only prevent that by randomly broadcasting radio waves that MAY detonate some of the bombs, isn't it likely that any damage, and casualties, will be far less than if the terrorists hit their planned target? Plus you are more likely to kill the bomb maker. Another plus.

If you don't know where the bomb factory is, how can you possibly make that calculation? Chances are it will be a house in the middle of a residential area, or in a high-rise block of flats.

Is it? Isn't making a bomb a terrorist act? Basically, an act of war? So killing the terrorist is also an act of war, is it not? Especially if the shooting is done by the police or the military.

Bomb-making by terrorists is in no legal sense an act of war: it is an act of terrorism, which is a crime. American law defines war as conflict between nations. "War is a contention between two or more States through their armed forces. War is that state in which a nation prosecutes its right by force." Quoted by Justice Hays in Pan American World Air., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 505 F. 2d 989 (1974). Countering terrorism is law enforcement, not war, and you glorify the terrorists' actions if you elevate them to acts of war. Consider how fondly many Americans regard the IRA as a noble, patriotic organisation, when it is, at best, a group of murderers, pimps, extortionists and drug dealers. But the IRA had a good press over there.