Should acting in an emergency situation result in punishment?

[tnunamak]

If an individual finds himself in an emergency situation and commits a crime, not because of evil intentions, but good ones, should he still face the same judicial penalties? I present a few hypothetical examples of different situations to consider:

A man

1) kills another man in order to preserve his own life.

2) steals from another in order to preserve his own life.

3) kills another in order to preserve the life of another.

4) steals from another in order to preserve the life of another.

...the notable difference between stealing and killing being that it is possible to later pay back the value of stolen goods. I'm predicting the possibility of context being important, but if so, if someone could point out circumstances under which context changes penalties imposed, it would make it easier for me to understand.

A bigger underlying question that is driving my thoughts, I think, is when should a man be penalized for his actions by the government? I'd like to point out that this includes paying for damage caused and thereby repairing it, and also paying with jail time, etc, as a means of justice but not repairing damages.

[DavidOdden]

1) kills another man in order to preserve his own life.

If you deliberately kill a person to prevent them from illegally killing you, you have open the self-defense defense. If you accidentally kill an innocent person in the course of defending yourself from being murdered, and the death could not have been prevented by reasonable precautions, you did not do any wrong. Otherwise, there should be consequences for you.

2) steals from another in order to preserve his own life.

There should be consequences for you.

3) kills another in order to preserve the life of another.

Like with (1), except that the person whose behalf you're acting on must allow you to act on his behalf. That means that you cannot kill a doctor who is helping a person commit suicide.

4) steals from another in order to preserve the life of another.

There should be consequences for you.

No man has the right to murder another, and while ideally the police would intervene to prevent the murder, in an emergency, it is proper to use force to defend your life, or to help another person save their life. The possibility of killing an innocent person cannot prevent you from saving your own life -- in terms of a rational hierarchy of values, the possibility of the death of another is less weighty than the certainty of your own death. But this is not carte blanche to kill innocent bystanders in a John Woo / Quentin Tarantino moment, and the standard should be whether you acted recklessly in defending yourself when there were obvious alternatives.

Theft, for example the cabin in the woods scenario, should have consequences, which in a rational society would include restitution. I think its a bit complex to decide whether there should also be punishment (additional consequences meted out as your "just deserts"). Your theft of supplies might well cause the death of the owner, if he happens to find himself in this same circumstance later, so the consequences should not just include repaying the cost of the consumed supplies, although your action which caused the death clearly isn't murder. If no harm results (other than the consumption of supplies), the punishment should be less, based I think on the likelihood that harm could have resulted (e.g. did the owner rely on the cabin often? or virtually never?).

[K-Mac]

A man

1) kills another man in order to preserve his own life.

2) steals from another in order to preserve his own life.

3) kills another in order to preserve the life of another.

4) steals from another in order to preserve the life of another.

1.) of course not (unless you've already fought the perp off and they're running away and you shoot them in the back or something like that, but even in that case I probably don't have a problem with you shooting them)

2.) this reminds me of Hurricane Katrina. If I remember correctly, those that were stealing food and water were not prosecuted, but those caught with TV's, electronics, jewelry, etc., were. I had no problem with that.

3.) same scenario as #1

4.) same scenario as #2

Basically, I cannot find any reason to disagree w/ David. (And I'm sure the Katrina victims that were stealing food/water instead of other non-essential items are the types of people who would have been happy to repay the store owners for what they took once the initial emergency situation was over.)

[DavidOdden]

1.) of course not (unless you've already fought the perp off and they're running away and you shoot them in the back or something like that, but even in that case I probably don't have a problem with you shooting them)

I gotta pick on you for that. Look at the question: in an emergency, is it okay to kill another man to preserve your life. Not "is it okay to kill an aggressor who is trying to kill you", but is it okay to kill any man if it will save your life, in an emergency. So, if one man has a medicine that you need (especially one that he needs for his life), can you rightly kill him and take his medicine. If you are on the verge of death from starvation, can you rightly kill another man and take his food (or worse). If I have to rush to the hospital to save my life, do I have the right to kill a man and take his car for transportation?

There is a subtle nuance here. If actions are necessary to prevent your death through the initiation of force, you need not lay down and die because of the possibility or even certainty that another person will die. But it doesn't follow that you may freely kill for the purpose of preserving your life, regardless of the nature of the threat to your life. The one case when it is actually right for you to kill a man to save your life is when the man is using deadly force, and deadly force is needed to stop him. The point about living by principle is that you have to identify the correct principle, and "Killing is okay to save your life" is not the correct principle.

(Also, I understand what you mean in saying "I probably don't have a problem with you shooting them", but objective law isn't founded on your problems, if you know what I mean. I have a problem with it, which is that in the "fleeing from the crime" case, the guy is no longer a threat, and you are now arrogating the governments monopoly right to retaliatory force. When the guy flees, he is not a threat and you are no longer defending yourself, you are punishing him. It is the courts that have the right to punish).

[K-Mac]

I gotta pick on you for that. Look at the question: in an emergency, is it okay to kill another man to preserve your life. Not "is it okay to kill an aggressor who is trying to kill you", but is it okay to kill any man if it will save your life, in an emergency. So, if one man has a medicine that you need (especially one that he needs for his life), can you rightly kill him and take his medicine. If you are on the verge of death from starvation, can you rightly kill another man and take his food (or worse). If I have to rush to the hospital to save my life, do I have the right to kill a man and take his car for transportation?

There is a subtle nuance here. If actions are necessary to prevent your death through the initiation of force, you need not lay down and die because of the possibility or even certainty that another person will die. But it doesn't follow that you may freely kill for the purpose of preserving your life, regardless of the nature of the threat to your life. The one case when it is actually right for you to kill a man to save your life is when the man is using deadly force, and deadly force is needed to stop him. The point about living by principle is that you have to identify the correct principle, and "Killing is okay to save your life" is not the correct principle.

(Also, I understand what you mean in saying "I probably don't have a problem with you shooting them", but objective law isn't founded on your problems, if you know what I mean. I have a problem with it, which is that in the "fleeing from the crime" case, the guy is no longer a threat, and you are now arrogating the governments monopoly right to retaliatory force. When the guy flees, he is not a threat and you are no longer defending yourself, you are punishing him. It is the courts that have the right to punish).

I agree. I misinterpreted the question. I was thinking more along the lines of another person is trying to kill me, do I have the right to kill them in self defense? (And although that would be an emergency, there are, obviously, other sorts of emergencies.) Yet another reason I shouldn't be posting at work...get in too big of a hurry.

On the second part, I figured I would take some slack for that, but that's my opinion. (That's why I said, "I probably...") I did not claim that to be how the law or the courts would look upon it. I have had to live the past 14 years of my life as a different person due to being robbed in my own home. So a fleeing robber, to me, is still a threat. The stupid, violent, drug-addicted, loser that threatened me in my own home is not worthy of surviving the ordeal he put me through. He took something away from me that I will never get back and most Americans take for granted; the right to feel safe and secure in my own home at night. That's a freedom that no one should have to live without. If only I had owned a firearm then...

[softwareNerd]

The case Regina v. Dudley and Stephens might be of interest. (HT: To the judge moderating the Q&A Ayn Rand's FHF speech of 1968)

[Johnny]

If you deliberately kill a person to prevent them from illegally killing you, you have open the self-defense defense. If you accidentally kill an innocent person in the course of defending yourself from being murdered, and the death could not have been prevented by reasonable precautions, you did not do any wrong.

Accidental only? I think that's too narrow. Suppose a nation is at war and in its self-defense it used nuclear ICBMs (as the aggressor nation is using them). There is no accident there.

The question is of who bear's moral culpability. If the aggressor nation leaves no choice to the nation acting in self-defense to retaliate in any other way but killing innocents, then those deaths fall squarely on the shoulders of the aggressor nation, not the nation that is left with no choice.

[K-Mac]

The case Regina v. Dudley and Stephens might be of interest.

Wow, what a crazy case! When you're out of your head and dying, who know what choices you will make? And should you be lucky enough to survive, should you be held accountable for those choices? I also think that it would be punishment enough to live with those memories and images every day for the rest of your life.

[DavidOdden]

Suppose a nation is at war and in its self-defense it used nuclear ICBMs (as the aggressor nation is using them).

The question raised was about "a man", not "a government". Individuals don't have the right of retaliatory force in a law-governed society.

[Johnny]

The question raised was about "a man", not "a government". Individuals don't have the right of retaliatory force in a law-governed society.

No I believe they do.

I think individuals do have the right of retaliatory force, but the government has the legitimate power to delayed retaliation or pass judgment on an individual's use of retaliatory force. In a law governed society a citizen can use retaliatory force in self-defense but he doesn't have the right to hold a criminal over for trial, and exact delayed punishment on the criminal, nor use disproportionate force while acting in self-defense. So it still seems too narrow to say 'accidental' only, the standard should be the preservation of your own life given no other opportunity to save it in response to an initiation of force. One should never sacrifice his highest value to life.

Suppose the criminal has a gun in one hand held up to a hostage, and starts shooting an innocent bystanders with another gun in the other hand, others have every right to fire back and kill the criminal and hostage if they have to in order to preserve their own life. If government has the legitimate authority to intentionally kill innocents in the course of its own self-preservation in the use of retaliatory force, so too do individuals acting in their own defense.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Johnny

[gags]

No I believe they do.

I think individuals do have the right of retaliatory force, but the government has the legitimate power to delayed retaliation or pass judgment on an individual's use of retaliatory force. In a law governed society a citizen can use retaliatory force in self-defense but he doesn't have the right to hold a criminal over for trial, and exact delayed punishment on the criminal, nor use disproportionate force while acting in self-defense.

It seems that you may be misunderstanding the term "retaliatory force". In this context, retaliatory force would be using force against someone after the fact. For example, if you were robbed and the thief took your money and then left the scene, you don't have the right to find the thief and punish him. You have the right to defend yourself at the time of the crime, but not to retaliate at a later date. Defending yourself at the time of the crime is not retaliatory force.

[DavidOdden]

In a law governed society a citizen can use retaliatory force in self-defense but he doesn't have the right to hold a criminal over for trial, and exact delayed punishment on the criminal, nor use disproportionate force while acting in self-defense.

Hence the distinction between retaliation and self-defense. Self-defense is the immediate, applicable only in emergencies. When there is no emergency, the individual has no right to use force.

So it still seems too narrow to say 'accidental' only, the standard should be the preservation of your own life given no other opportunity to save it in response to an initiation of force.

If you have a choice of equally effective ways to stop an aggressor who is trying to kill you -- one that will kill the aggressor, another that will kill (or otherwise stop) the aggressor plus kill an innocent party, you do not have the right to kill the additionally kill an innocent person. This does not narrow down your choice so that you must die. Are you proposing that there is a realistic scenario where your only way of stopping an aggressor is to deliberate set out to kill an innocent person? The point that you're failing to get in your hostage scenario is that when you try to stop the aggressor, you don't set out to kill the hostage, you set out to kill the aggressor, recognizing that your shots may unintentionally hit the hostage.

The issue of "collateral damage" in bombing is completely separate -- essentially, there are no innocents in war, and if you want to pursue the question of how to conduct a proper war, that ought to be a different thread.

[Drew1776]

On the second part, I figured I would take some slack for that, but that's my opinion. (That's why I said, "I probably...") I did not claim that to be how the law or the courts would look upon it. I have had to live the past 14 years of my life as a different person due to being robbed in my own home. So a fleeing robber, to me, is still a threat. The stupid, violent, drug-addicted, loser that threatened me in my own home is not worthy of surviving the ordeal he put me through. He took something away from me that I will never get back and most Americans take for granted; the right to feel safe and secure in my own home at night. That's a freedom that no one should have to live without. If only I had owned a firearm then...

I agree with you 100%. I assume the man was armed. If that is the case he doesn't deserve to live. He obviously doesn't respect rights, even your right to life, if he is threatening you with a gun. It seems obvious to me that people should be encouraged to put down such violent criminals.

There's NO need to waste tax-payer money to prosecute a thug.

There's NO need to risk said thug roaming the streets again whether due to a weak judge, jury, or parole board.

On second thought even if he was unarmed it wouldn't matter. You should have to ask or find out if an intruder is armed before you take steps to yourself. The surest way to stop an intruder and to protect yourself is to KILL the intruder.

I have a question for David. To be sure I understand your position. You seem to be saying that one can only act in self defense "in the moment." So if someone breaks into my house shots me in the leg and begin walking out with my TV you would say that I don't have the right to kill him? After all he's leaving he no longer poses a threat to me. Or say a woman was raped at gunpoint as the assailant leaves she shoots at him intending to kill him would this also not be justified under your position?

[Johnny]

Hence the distinction between retaliation and self-defense. Self-defense is the immediate, applicable only in emergencies. When there is no emergency, the individual has no right to use force.If you have a choice of equally effective ways to stop an aggressor who is trying to kill you -- one that will kill the aggressor, another that will kill (or otherwise stop) the aggressor plus kill an innocent party, you do not have the right to kill the additionally kill an innocent person. This does not narrow down your choice so that you must die. Are you proposing that there is a realistic scenario where your only way of stopping an aggressor is to deliberate set out to kill an innocent person? The point that you're failing to get in your hostage scenario is that when you try to stop the aggressor, you don't set out to kill the hostage, you set out to kill the aggressor, recognizing that your shots may unintentionally hit the hostage.The issue of "collateral damage" in bombing is completely separate -- essentially, there are no innocents in war, and if you want to pursue the question of how to conduct a proper war, that ought to be a different thread.

So a citizen can employ force against an initiation of force if it is an emergency, but you don't call this retaliatory force? You call it "self-defense" force, a third type of force I assume (initiation, retaliation, and self-defense). Ok fair enough. And a government in using force against an aggressor nation killing innocents is ok because that is an "emergency", so this leads me confused on the standards of force you are making? You are saying on the one hand government can deliberately target innocents if it is left no other opportunity to defend itself because it is an "emergency" type of force, but an individual faced with a similar "emergency" situation must accept his own destruction as to not compromise his principles of non-initiation of force?You say the scenario is unlikely. But what if someone is on trial for murder, faces the death penalty, and a third party holds evidence of his innocence, yet that third party refuses to cooperate, does as the 6th amendment suggest one has a right to "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor", which would be itself a use of force against a citizen who did not initiate it? Or must we say the innocent on trial ready for execution must await his own destruction, because it would be wrong to compel another individual who did not transgress?

It seems that you may be misunderstanding the term "retaliatory force". In this context, retaliatory force would be using force against someone after the fact. For example, if you were robbed and the thief took your money and then left the scene, you don't have the right to find the thief and punish him. You have the right to defend yourself at the time of the crime, but not to retaliate at a later date. Defending yourself at the time of the crime is not retaliatory force.

Isn't that what I said? I called punishing a criminal after the fact "delayed retaliation" and put self-defense as a type of retaliation considered to "immediate". However we want to define our terms is fine so long as we understand we're using the same concepts here. Edited August 9, 2007 by Johnny

[gags]

Isn't that what I said? I called punishing a criminal after the fact "delayed retaliation" and put self-defense as a type of retaliation considered to "immediate". However we want to define our terms is fine so long as we understand we're using the same concepts here.

Your use of the term retaliation in connection with self-defense is confusing. An individual doesn't retaliate in self defense, one simply defends himself or herself. Retaliation connotes some sort of payback for an aggressive act committed against you, whereas self-defense is just that; you are defending yourself from an aggressor. In a civil society, the government is charged with meting out "payback", not individuals.

[Johnny]

Your use of the term retaliation in connection with self-defense is confusing. An individual doesn't retaliate in self defense, one simply defends himself or herself. Retaliation connotes some sort of payback for an aggressive act committed against you, whereas self-defense is just that; you are defending yourself from an aggressor. In a civil society, the government is charged with meting out "payback", not individuals.

Again, which is what I agree with and said but you are not happy with terms I chose. That's fine. As long as we can agree there are intellectual distinctions here and I accept the terms you use.

So, self-defense is an emergency kind of force, and a nation defending itself is using force as an emergency and can thus kill civilians if it has no other choice. But if an individual using emergency force is faced with a similar situation, he must face his own destruction?

[gags]

So, self-defense is an emergency kind of force, and a nation defending itself is using force as an emergency and can thus kill civilians if it has no other choice. But if an individual using emergency force is faced with a similar situation, he must face his own destruction?

No, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on anything that I've said here. In your example above regarding a person on trial for a crime he didn't commit, there are situations where the state can compel a witness to testify. Isn't that what would likely happen under the scenario you've outlined? In the proper context, I don't see that as either immoral or an improper use of government power.

[DavidOdden]

I have a question for David. To be sure I understand your position. You seem to be saying that one can only act in self defense "in the moment." So if someone breaks into my house shots me in the leg and begin walking out with my TV you would say that I don't have the right to kill him?

This is the whole point of having "rule of law" and living in a civilized society. See "The Nature of Government" 127-8:

The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed and to prove who committed it, as well as objective rules to define punishments and enforcement procedures. Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens, it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law and an endless series of bloody private feuds or vendettas. If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules. This is the task of a government—of a proper government —its basic task, is only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government. A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws. The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. It has to hold such a monopoly, since it is the agent of restraining and combating the use of force...

Since as you say he is no longer posing a threat to you, retaliatory force must be left to the legal system -- the police who will physically take the man and the courts who will find fact and determine whether he is to be punished. They might find that you were at fault because it was not your TV; at any rate, in no state in the US is the death penalty prescribed for robbery. Maybe you want to argue that all crimes should be punished with the death penalty, maybe not -- either way, the determination of guilt and the nature of the punishment is to be determined objectively by the government, and not on the spur of the moment by the man on the street.

[DavidOdden]

You call it "self-defense" force, a third type of force I assume (initiation, retaliation, and self-defense).

Yup, that's the standard distinction. But we're not talking about nations during war, we're talking about theft and murder.

But what if someone is on trial for murder, faces the death penalty, and a third party holds evidence of his innocence, yet that third party refuses to cooperate, does as the 6th amendment suggest one has a right to "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor", which would be itself a use of force against a citizen who did not initiate it?

We can strip this down to the essentials -- regardless of the charge, if a witness has exculpatory evidence, he can be subpoenaed by the courts and forced to testify. Again, the government has the monopoly on such use of force, so you as the defendant do not have the right to hire goons to break the guys knees to force him to testify.

You need to go back and read the first post. The question is not when the government may properly use force, the question is whether is it right for an individual to use force in certain circumstances (self-defense: yes; rage: no; hunger: no). Self-defense is the one context where it's actually right and proper to use force.

[K-Mac]

I still would have killed him had I been given the chance. If anyone ever tries to pull that crap with me again, they're going to get a .44 pointed at them so fast they won't even know what hit them. I'm shooting first and asking questions later.

"...I'm gonna change you from a rooster to a hen with one shot! And don't think I can't do it." - Doralee Rhodes (Dolly Parton's character in Nine to Five)

[Johnny]

No, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion based on anything that I've said here. In your example above regarding a person on trial for a crime he didn't commit, there are situations where the state can compel a witness to testify. Isn't that what would likely happen under the scenario you've outlined? In the proper context, I don't see that as either immoral or an improper use of government power.

I don't either. But it is no accident when a third party is compelled to testify. So when David says: "If you accidentally kill an innocent person in the course of defending yourself from being murdered, and the death could not have been prevented by reasonable precautions, you did not do any wrong." although subpoena power doesn't necessarily result in death, it does employ force against a party that did not transgress.

[Johnny]

Yup, that's the standard distinction. But we're not talking about nations during war, we're talking about theft and murder.We can strip this down to the essentials -- regardless of the charge, if a witness has exculpatory evidence, he can be subpoenaed by the courts and forced to testify. Again, the government has the monopoly on such use of force, so you as the defendant do not have the right to hire goons to break the guys knees to force him to testify.

You need to go back and read the first post. The question is not when the government may properly use force, the question is whether is it right for an individual to use force in certain circumstances (self-defense: yes; rage: no; hunger: no). Self-defense is the one context where it's actually right and proper to use force.

David I agree that self-defense is proper, and that rage or hunger are not proper (we can add disproportionate force used in self-defense as well) the only issue is that you have narrowed the principle too far to say only accidental death of an innocent during the course of self-defense is ok. There are situations where there is no choice but to kill an innocent, such as a nation acting in self-defense (there isn't a vital philsophical distinction between an individual acting in self-defense and a nation acting in self-defense) and that if the opportunity presents no other way out, the actor acting in self-defense must do whatever one reasonably can to defend their life from destruction, which includes the right to kill an innocent if no other choice is available (accidental implies we have no foreknowledge of the death of the innocent).

So we are saying then when a government in the course of pursuing justice, uses subpoena power (which is a means of force) can do so against a third party who did not transgress, but again this is no accident. Issuing a subpoena is a deliberate act against an innocent who did not transgress. So does that mean force can be used against those who did not transgress during the course of retaliatory force?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Johnny

[DavidOdden]

Issuing a subpoena is a deliberate act against an innocent who did not transgress. So does that mean force can be used against those who did not transgress during the course of retaliatory force?

Yes, by the government, under the objective control of a system of laws. Note that if the government absolutely cannot use force against an innocent person in the pursuit of justice, justice will rarely be possible. The police will have no power to arrest a person, because a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We could not compel a person to appear for trial until he had been convicted (how? Kangaroo court, in absentia?). The controlled use of force is essential to obtaining justice.

[Johnny]

Yes, by the government, under the objective control of a system of laws. Note that if the government absolutely cannot use force against an innocent person in the pursuit of justice, justice will rarely be possible. The police will have no power to arrest a person, because a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. We could not compel a person to appear for trial until he had been convicted (how? Kangaroo court, in absentia?). The controlled use of force is essential to obtaining justice.

David thanks for engaging me on this. You have given me more intellectual ammunition for the case on subpoena powers.

Would you say then this force the government uses against a witness to compel him to testify is valid because government has the power to employ force against innocents. But the only trouble I'm having David is that in one instance we don't know if someone is innocent (the accused) and there is probable cause for arrest, in the other instance we know the third party witness is innocent. While in the first instance it is force employed because we do not know the accused is innocent, and we are not deliberately employing force against an innocent, in the other instance we do know the third party is innocent, and we are deliberately employing force against an innocent. What is the guiding principle here?

Edited August 9, 2007 by Johnny

[softwareNerd]

While in the first instance... in the other instance .... What is the guiding principle here?

Aren't those two basically similar in the "employment of force" sense? In one case an innocent witness is forced to testify. In the other a possibly innocent but possibly guilty person is forcibly held. The innocent witness is given the small "burden" of coming to testify, the suspect is given the bigger burden of being held.