Originally posted by psmith81992
So if you're in the process of self defense, you have to worry more about not killing the perpetrator than your own life and/or family? That sounds kinda stupid.
Yup, but tis the law. I think you're not allowed to use excessive force or something like that in self-defence. No clue. I'll have to check it out.
Self-defence in English law is using reasonable force against an unjust threat. Self-defence is a justification rather than an excuse (Robinson's classification of defences), that is, the defence is asserting that the actions were not a crime at all. Self-defence in English law is a complete defence of justification in cases involving all levels of assault. Hence, self-defence is distinguishable from loss of control, which only applies to mitigate what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter (i.e., loss of control is not a complete defence).
"A defendant is entitled to use reasonable force to protect himself, others for whom he is responsible and his property. It must be reasonable."
Opinions differ as to what constitutes "reasonable force" but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine this because he would always maintain that he had acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Self-defence in English law is using reasonable force against an unjust threat.
And what if reasonable force results in kill or be killed? When you're being attacked, you don't have time to worry about the well being of your attacker.
Hence, self-defence is distinguishable from loss of control, which only applies to mitigate what would otherwise have been murder to manslaughter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide
Opinions differ as to what constitutes "reasonable force" but, in all cases, the defendant does not have the right to determine this because he would always maintain that he had acted reasonably and thus would never be guilty. The jury, as ordinary members of the community, must decide the amount of force reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
Originally posted by psmith81992
So you're against child rape but not murder? Hm..I don't think RH is against it but I may be wrong. Suppose we should let him explain. But it's nice to see that only a select few on here are against it. There's hope for humanity yet.
As a political matter, I believe that the current system is rife with abuse, that systematic racism and limited bureaucratic resources make the death penalty impractical and socially dangerous.
As a moral matter, I strongly believe that the cost of housing versus executing a prisoner is irrelevant; you should not be ending lives based on cost. Moreover, executing a single innocent prisoner is morally problematic in a way that imprisoning them isn't. (Far easier to make reparations to a living man than a dead one.) And at the bottom line, it is difficult for me to conceive of a failure to even attempt rehabilitation as anything other than a tragic miscarriage of justice.
However, I do not believe that punitive execution is morally impermissible. It is conceivable that there is a case where the death penalty is appropriate. The name that comes to mind is Saddam Hussein. It think that after the international court found him guilty of war-crimes it was impossible to avoid an execution. These sorts of cases are rare but philosophically relevant.
One of the key components of the criminal justice system that I'm still deciding on is the concept of just deserts. There's a complicated case about murder by a hermit in the wilderness who will never have another chance to do harm (or benefit) to anybody. Does the hermit deserve punishment even though there is no risk or harm to letting him go live in isolation? I'm very torn on this case.
Also, having reviewed the posts in my absence, I'd like to point out a few things:
- Murder is illegal killing. Justified homicide is not murder. State executions are also not murder. Misusing terms tends to create an aura of moral impurity around what is otherwise an act to protect one's self or others, as opposed to an act merely to hurt others period.
- Rejecting the death penalty for the flaws of the legal system is like banning cars because of drunk drivers and old people; it ignores addressable flaws in one part which necessarily affect the moral weight of the other.
- Executions are only expensive because they are kept alive for almost two decades, and we pay for their legal defense, upkeep, health care, cable, internet access, whatever. A rope and a chair is pretty easily reused. If the evidence is truly overwhelming, the criminal truly reprehensible, and the case subject to review, an execution should take place. We have a social contract to respect and aid one another; you don't think twice when a soldier has to kill an enemy combatant doing XYZ, but a child raping murderer must not be slain?
Does not follow.
As I understand it, you have more problem with the failings of our current system than capital punishment itself.
One of the key components of the criminal justice system that I'm still deciding on is the concept of just deserts. There's a complicated case about murder by a hermit in the wilderness who will never have another chance to do harm (or benefit) to anybody. Does the hermit deserve punishment even though there is no risk or harm to letting him go live in isolation? I'm very torn on this case.
I don't understand. I'm assuming the guarantee that the hermit won't be able to hurt someone else is just for the sake of argument because it's not a guarantee can be made. But I don't look at what the murderer COULD do, I look at what the murderer HAS done.
- Murder is legal killing. Justified homicide is not murder. State executions are also not murder. Misusing terms tends to create an aura of moral impurity around what is otherwise an act to protect one's self or others, as opposed to an act merely to hurt others period.
Rejecting the death penalty for the flaws of the legal system is like banning cars because of drunk drivers and old people; it ignores addressable flaws in one part which necessarily affect the moral weight of the other.
👆
Executions are only expensive because they are kept alive for almost two decades, and we pay for their legal defense, upkeep, health care, cable, internet access, whatever. A rope and a chair is pretty easily reused. If the evidence is truly overwhelming, the criminal truly reprehensible, and the case subject to review, an execution should take place. We have a social contract to respect and aid one another; you don't think twice when a soldier has to kill an enemy combatant doing XYZ, but a child raping murderer must not be slain?Does not follow.
Originally posted by Zampanó
One of the key components of the criminal justice system that I'm still deciding on is the concept of just deserts. There's a complicated case about murder by a hermit in the wilderness who will never have another chance to do harm (or benefit) to anybody. Does the hermit deserve punishment even though there is no risk or harm to letting him go live in isolation? I'm very torn on this case.
How could you possibly be torn on that? Of course he deserves punishment. There is one less life in the world because of him. One less child, one less parent. Life is precious and he wasted it.
Also I completely agree that its absurd that time between sentencing and execution. Up to and over 20 ****ing years? What could possibly take that long? There's caution and then there's stupidity.
Originally posted by psmith81992
As I understand it, you have more problem with the failings of our current system than capital punishment itself.I don't understand. I'm assuming the guarantee that the hermit won't be able to hurt someone else is just for the sake of argument because it's not a guarantee can be made. But I don't look at what the murderer COULD do, I look at what the murderer HAS done.
Completely non liberal perspective, wow. Most liberals call it "state sponsored execution" or "murder". NICE
👆
👆
Most arguments against boil down to some vague "All life is precious argument" (As they use anti-bacteria soap and eat plants and animals) or "The current systen isn't perfect". The latter is lulzworthy because it rejects a human made system for being not perfect. Second, the number of people executed is less than those who die from falling off of ladders, being crushed by vending machines, or killed every day in major US highways.
Most of the wrongfully accused were either blacks in southern states decades ago (there's still men being released due to new DNA evidence) or crimes which predate evidence available now. Sorry, but if a body is found and your sperm is all over it along with fingerprints and you don't have exceptional proof, buh-bye.
Second, the number of people executed is less than those who die from falling off of ladders, being crushed by vending machines, or killed every day in major US highways.
Most of the wrongfully accused were either blacks in southern states decades ago (there's still men being released due to new DNA evidence) or crimes which predate evidence available now. Sorry, but if a body is found and your sperm is all over it along with fingerprints and you don't have exceptional proof, buh-bye.
Originally posted by Zampanó
One of the key components of the criminal justice system that I'm still deciding on is the concept of just deserts. There's a complicated case about murder by a hermit in the wilderness who will never have another chance to do harm (or benefit) to anybody. Does the hermit deserve punishment even though there is no risk or harm to letting him go live in isolation? I'm very torn on this case.
Certainly. Even if one does not agree with the concept of "just deserts", if one does not follow through with the punishment then the punishment does not serve as a deterrent.
Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't have a problem with those who reject capital punishment on chance of executing an innocent person. The problem is, it's usually a smokescreen argument and if you ask them if they'd support capital punishment if no innocents were executed, they'd still say no. Those who say yes, I have no issue with.Lol. 👆
Yeah, I do advocate better due process and burden of proof for execution. But again, that's an argument against implementation, not the method itself.
Originally posted by ares834
Certainly. Even if one does not agree with the concept of "just deserts", if one does not follow through with the punishment then the punishment does not serve as a deterrent.
Originally posted by Nephthys
How could you possibly be torn on that? Of course he deserves punishment. There is one less life in the world because of him. One less child, one less parent. Life is precious and he wasted it.
Because executing the hermit means that there are now two fewer lives in the world. He is not going to do any more harm so why are we executing him, exactly?
Because executing the hermit means that there are now two fewer lives in the world. He is not going to do any more harm so why are we executing him, exactly?
How is that justice though? I don't think the main purpose of capital punishment is a deterrent. If it was, we wouldn't have a lengthy appeals process and the accused would be dead within a year. If it's a deterrent, it's a byproduct to the true goal which is justice. You can look at it as two fewer lives, or you can look at it as 1 fewer innocent life, and 1 less murderer in the world. It's about righting the wrong.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Because executing the hermit means that there are now two fewer lives in the world. He is not going to do any more harm so why are we executing him, exactly?
Uh, because he has infringed on the value of a societal member.
If you don't havr consequences, rules become inconveniences to be exploited. That's not a smart way to run a society. If he kills someone, and it's not justifiable and there's sufficient evidence, he forfeits the basic protection offered to people in the state... a protection which we extend even to foreigners and hermits.
Originally posted by Zampanó
Because executing the hermit means that there are now two fewer lives in the world. He is not going to do any more harm so why are we executing him, exactly?
Executing? What the hell did he do to warrant a capital sentence? Murder a judge? I assumed we just meant imprisonment.
Theres no possible way to guarantee that he won't harm anyone else. Being in the middle of nowhere doesn't prevent a survey or research team, campers, sasquatch or anyone else from crossing paths with him.
Also, he presumably killed an innocent person. His life isn't equal to theirs.