Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What is the O'ist view on the death penalty?

Rate this topic


nimble

Recommended Posts

How many of you who oppose the application of the capital punishment in the current political sense, support the government as being the body to perform law enforcement with use of force? If you support one and not the other, I suggest by the principle being used to oppose capital punishment, you are being hypocritical.

With law enforcement officers out there enforcing the law with force, innocent men get killed sometimes as a direct result of that enforcement. To carry this principle over, one could not support the government's use of force to enforce laws because the people who carry them out are not infallible. If one opposes the government using force to carry out the enforcement of laws, how does one propose that laws be enforced? The only answer remaining is by placing the burden on the individual.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Big letters and colors don't change the content of what you are saying. I, for one, understood already why you opposed it. You have stated it numerous times. This is not a comprehension problem.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent USA state-killing rates: Through May 24, the rate of capital punishment in the US in 2004 will have been 39% less than this country's rate for 1999, which, with 98 killed, was the record-worst year since 1951. (This figure is the average of the 2 unrounded percentages below, and is shown graphically.) US Bureau of Justice Statistics

This indicates that the US may have a record low number of "executions" in 2004, since 1999.

Through May 24, there will have been 25 executions in the US in 2004. This represents a rate of 63 per year, 36% less than the 98 killed in this country in 1999.

Considering that, in recent years, US state killings have been chronically weighted early in the calendar year, another way of figuring the current rate is that through May 24, 1999, there had been 44 state murders in the US that year; so 25/44 times 98 equals 56 projected for 2004 (43% less than 1999).

There were 85 executions in the US in 2000 (13% less than 1999), 66 in 2001 (33% less than 1999), 71 in 2002 (28% less than 1999), and 65 in 2003 (34% less than 1999).

International statistics:

(numbers are murder rates per 100,000 people per year)

The Amnesty International Website Against the Death Penalty, link "Facts and Figures on the Death Penalty", has the following information: -- More than 3 countries a year, on average, have abolished the death penalty for all crimes in the last decade -- A United Nations survey of research findings, conducted in 1988 and updated in 1996, found no evidence of the death penalty being a more effective deterrent than other penalties -- Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976, and Canada's murder rate dropped 43% in 24 years, from 3.09 in 1975 to 1.76 in 1999 -- The only countries which execute as many people as the United States in a year are China, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Congo (all dictatorships) -- Since 1990, the United States has executed more people who were under 18 at the time of their offense than any other country in the world (as far is as known to AI)

During the 1990s, while the US execution rate grew markedly, the amount that the murder rates of the US states with the death penalty, were higher than the rates of the US states without the death penalty, grew markedly as well; and, while the murder rates of the death penalty states declined markedly during that period, the murder rates of the abolitionist states declined considerably more -- with no pattern, in the changes in the murder rates, apparent, when the states are listed in the order of the ratios of the numbers of executions they have had, to their populations. US Murder Rates Relative to the Death Penalty

Mexico has effectively abolished the death penalty since 1937.

The last country in western Europe to carry out the death penalty was France (in 1977). Abolition of the death penalty is required for membership in the European Union (15 countries), and effective abolition is required by the Council of Europe (43 countries). 60% of the countries in the world have now effectively abolished the death penalty.

Why do I protest the death penalty? I will cite the basic fact that there is no evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate more than the threat of life without parole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inmate kills for death penalty

News24.com

27/05/2004 14:58 - (SA)

Print article email story

Starke, Florida - A man who said he killed a fellow prison inmate so the state of Florida would give him the death penalty has been executed.

John Blackwelder, 49, received an injection of chemicals at Florida State Prison on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Governor Jeb Bush said.

Blackwelder was convicted in the May 2000 strangling of Raymond Wigley, 39, who was serving a life term for murder.

At the time, Blackwelder faced life without parole for a series of sex convictions. He said he killed Wigley and pleaded guilty to first-degree murder because he wanted to die but couldn't bring himself to commit suicide.

"I'm glad I get to go home," Blackwelder said after being strapped to his gurney. "I'm proud to be a Christian, and I thank Jesus for saving me and allowing me to go home. Amen."

Blackwelder's execution was delayed 24 hours after a prison inmate said he'd heard a second-hand claim that another inmate had confessed to Wigley's killing.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement used DNA evidence to disprove the claim, Bush said.

"I felt in an abundance of caution that there should be extra work done, which was done overnight," he said.

Blackwelder said he lured Wigley into his cell at Columbia Correctional Institution with the promise of a sex act, then tied him to the bed and killed him as Wigley begged for mercy.

He claimed he was innocent of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy.

Blackwelder was the second inmate to be executed in Florida this year and the 59th since the state resumed executions in 1979.

Six of the last 10 executions in Florida were of inmates who, like Blackwelder, dropped appeals to speed their deaths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do I protest the death penalty?  I will cite the basic fact that there is no evidence that the death penalty lowers the murder rate more than the threat of life without parole.

Well, this is a new opposition, which has nothing whatsoever to do with you previously (redundantly) stated opposition.

It also doesn't address the point that I just made above.

Objectivist, do you support the government's ability to use force in enforcing laws?

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Death Penalty Facts

DETERRENCE

The Death Penalty Is Not a Deterrent.

A New York Times survey, released in September 2000, found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

FBI data showed that 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average.

The threat of execution at some future date is unlikely to enter the minds of killers acting under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, or who are in the grip of fear or rage, or who are panicking while committing another crime (such as a robbery), or who suffer from mental illness or mental retardation and do not fully understand the gravity of their crime. Likewise, children and young people are less likely to reflect upon or genuinely comprehend the consequences of their actions.

Recent studies cast further doubt that the death penalty has any deterrent effect. Rather, these studies found support for the theory that the death penalty has a brutalizing effect.

* An examination of homicides in Los Angeles before and after the execution of Robert Harris in 1992, California’s first execution in 25 years, revealed slight increases in homicides during the eight months following Harris’ execution.

* A comparison of murder rates and rates of sub-types of murder (felony-murder; stranger robbery-related murder; stranger non-felony murder; argument-related murder) in Oklahoma between 1989 and 1991 uncovered no evidence of a deterrent effect. Researchers did find a significant increase in stranger killings (both felony and non-felony) after Oklahoma resumed executions after a 25-year moratorium.

* Researchers Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood studied differences in homicides in 293 counties that were paired based on factors such as geographic location and demographic and economic variables. The pairs shared a contiguous border, but differed on use of capital punishment. The authors found no support for a deterrent effect. They did find higher violent crime rates in death penalty counties.

"I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point." - Former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, January 2000

It is an irrelevent position. I have have given up on you understanding my posts, so I figured on attacking your cited reasons you want the death penalty.

You have yet to tell me why you would sacrifice even yourself for people that now think as you do. If you were falsely convicted and sentenced to death, you would say, "It was all worth it?"

See?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an irrelevent position.  I have have given up on you understanding my posts, so I figured on attacking your cited reasons you want the death penalty.

Obejctivist,

You are evading my question and my point, something to which you appeared to take great offense to and PM'ed me several times about before. Notice that I don't do that to you. I courteously address you in public with a question.

My point is well based in logic, and the principle is applicable.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have yet to tell me why you would sacrifice even yourself for people that now think as you do.  If you were falsely convicted and sentenced to death, you would say, "It was all worth it?"

See?

I explained the difference between sacrifice and risk. You have ignored that. Taking a risk, particularly one so mininal, and one of which I have so much control over, is not a sacrifice.

I have also explained several times that yes, I'm willing to take that risk. If you doubt my sincerity, fine. But don't keep asking the same question and expecting a different response.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With law enforcement officers out there enforcing the law with force, innocent men get killed sometimes as a direct result of that enforcement.  To carry this principle over, one could not support the government's use of force to enforce laws because the people who carry them out are not infallible.  If one opposes the government using force to carry out the enforcement of laws, how does one propose that laws be enforced?  The only answer remaining is by placing the burden on the individual.

VES

I believe law enforcement agents are armed to protect themselves. They dont just get to kill people on whim. Or even in an act of justice. If they catch the murderer they arent allowed to kill him on the spot. They are only allowed to fire in self defense, and if a court finds that they fired not in self defense, then they get in HUGE trouble. ANd if innocent people die, the state or county almost always gets sued for LARGE sums of money. SO there is accountability. But you raise an interesting point. ALthough i think they are armed more for self defense than for "enforcing" the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically -- and, succinctly if you will -- what is the single major point of your disagreement?

I believe our current practice is sufficiently capable and safe-gaurded that we can use capital punishment. Whether that constitutes disagreement with Rand or not is open to interpretation.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANd if innocent people die, the state or county almost always gets sued for LARGE sums of money.

Well, that does nothing to refute the issue I brought up. Having been a police officer for 18 1/2 years, I know why we carry weapons.

The specific point that I contested is the issue of supporting a system which can by accident or corruption result in the loss of innocent life.

The courts (or the state) uses force (including lethal force) to protect individual rights. This force is subject to error (and / or corruption in the case of prejudice jurors) and can result in the death of an innocent man. Others contend that that means we should not use capital punishment in our current political state. "Sacrificing" just one individual for that protection (or safety and comfort) means it's not worth it.

The police (or the state) uses force (including lethal force) to protect individual rights. This force is subject to error (and / or corruption on the part of the officer for a whole host of reasons) and can result in the death of an innocent man. Thus, if you contend in the first instance that the possibility of error negates our option to use capital punishment for these reasons, then logical you must also be against the government using force, or at the very least lethal force, in the enforcement of laws. "Sacrificing" just one individual for that protection (or safety and comfort) means it's not worth it according to that principle.

The courts have years to reflect on the facts of the case. Many brains are put to task in evaluating the case.

The police have mere seconds to reflect on the use of force. Usually only one brain is put to task to consider the option. And that's assuming that the case is a matter of error, not corruption. The fact that the police officer may be subject to sanction following the killing of an innocent man does not negate the priniciple. If that makes the difference, then perhaps we should start holding judges and juries responsible for their errors. I don't think it does make the difference. The innocent man is still dead. He has been "sacrificed" for the common good.

I would venture to say that one's chances of people shot accidentally and killed by a mistaken police officer is far greater than being falsely accused and convicted of murder. This leaves out the corrupt officers, which are probably a lot less, but still out there.

My position has been, and remains, that in both instances the risk (not the sacrifice as that is not my wording) is sufficiently minimal and the best safe gaurds we have available are being applied.

VES

PS Edit:

They dont just get to kill people on whim. Or even in an act of justice. If they catch the murderer they arent allowed to kill him on the spot.

Neither do the courts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe our current practice is sufficiently capable and safe-gaurded that we can use capital punishment. Whether that constitutes disagreement with Rand or not is open to interpretation.

Sounds more like a difference of judgment and/or application, rather than a disagreement of principle. There is plenty of room for disagreements of that kind among Objectivists, but fundamental principles are a different thing entirely.

But, considering your position, what do you say to those who would just point to the OJ trial as a blatant example of bad judgment by the jurors, and perhaps bad judicial judgment throughout the case. I realize that this resulted in an acquittal, rather than in a conviction, but does this not lead us to question the level of rationality present in the current judicial system? Again, we are talking here about the possibility of executing an innocent man, a rather irreversible process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, considering your position, what do you say to those who would just point to the OJ trial as a blatant example of bad judgment by the jurors, and perhaps bad judicial judgment throughout the case. I realize that this resulted in an acquittal, rather than in a conviction, but does this not lead us to question the level of rationality present in the current judicial system? Again, we are talking here about the possibility of executing an innocent man, a rather irreversible process.

It leads me to question individual instances, not necessarily the system as a whole. The OJ trial was not indicative of your average trial, in my opinion, not even your average murder trial. Court TV can lend evidence to some of the more typical trials I believe. However, aside from the issue of the rationality of the jurors, there were some elements of how the case was handled that came out of the police work involved, which I again point back to the fallibility of the police. With that in mind, I am curious as to your opinion about the logic I used in my comparisons above between the death penalty and the use of force by police.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe law enforcement agents are armed to protect themselves. They dont just get to kill people on whim. Or even in an act of justice. If they catch the murderer they arent allowed to kill him on the spot. They are only allowed to fire in self defense, and if a court finds that they fired not in self defense, then they get in HUGE trouble. ANd if innocent people die, the state or county almost always gets sued for LARGE sums of money. SO there is accountability. But you raise an interesting point. ALthough i think they are armed more for self defense than for "enforcing" the law.

i already posted it, but here it is again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It leads me to question individual instances, not necessarily the system as a whole. 

Okay. But, it only takes one individual instance to end the life of an innocent man. That is an irretrievable loss. How many "individual instances" of such a tragic injustice would it take to change your mind? Is it really a matter of number, or a matter of principle?

With that in mind, I am curious as to your opinion about the logic I used in my comparisons above between the death penalty and the use of force by police.

There is no legitimate comparison. There are two cases you mention.

(1) Accidental loss of innocent life in the line of duty.

The responsibility for this lies squarely on the criminals who created the illegal circumstances wherein this happened. There is always risk in a society which seeks to protect itself from criminal actions.

(2) Loss of innocent life due to actions by corrupt police.

This makes the individual perpetrators criminals. Police also are subject to rule by law.

But none of this relates to the issue of capital punishment. There we do have a choice, independent of any other concerns. The choice is to still meter out punishment, in the form of life imprisonment, and to do so instead of death. And, again, just so there is no chance of misunderstanding: there is no question here about capital punishment being morally justified. The only question is whether it is legally justified, and I think that is a complicated issue, as a matter of principle, for the philosophy of law.

However, my own personal judgment of the state of today's legal system, especially considering precarious circumstances regarding jurors, I am wont to err on the side of conservatism and opt for life imprisonment rather than face the possibility of an ending an innocent life.

Also, there is another choice which has not been mentioned, and this is one I always thought about since I was a kid. Banish the murders to a remote place, a place isolated from the rest of the world, a place with just enough natural resources that they can sustain themselves only by a large effort. Keep them isolated, and let them fend for themselves. This would be a minimal cost to society, and yet would not directly end the life of an innocent man. It would put him at some risk, but that is a different consideration from capital punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. But, it only takes one individual instance to end the life of an innocent man. That is an irretrievable loss. How many "individual instances" of such a tragic injustice would it take to change your mind? Is it really a matter of number, or a matter of principle?

I will give that some consideration before answering.

There is no legitimate comparison. There are two cases you mention.
Here is why I disagree.

(1) Accidental loss of innocent life in the line of duty.

The responsibility for this lies squarely on the criminals who created the illegal circumstances wherein this happened. There is always risk in a society which seeks to protect itself from criminal actions.

The loss of the innocent life is still just as tragic, and it still occurred as an error on the part of the police officer. That you can put it on the shoulders of the criminal (if there is one) doesn't change that or reduce the tragedy of the lost innocent life. Many factors go into whether or not a police officer made that error aside from the criminal creating the situation, training and hiring practices probably being the most significant, not to mention the actually level of accountability that the department and / or state holds these police officers too. This doesn't even cover the mistakes made when there really is no criminal involved.

(2) Loss of innocent life due to actions by corrupt police.

This makes the individual perpetrators criminals. Police also are subject to rule by law.

Again, I don't think this changes the principle involved. The hiring system of the government to put law enforcement officers out on the streets does not wholly eliminate criminals from gettting badges and guns. The state, by virtue of it's inability to ensure non-criminals from being hired as police officers is creating a situation where there is a potential loss of innocent life. This creates the risk ( which I might add I alluded to in both instances of the court and the police) that apparently you find acceptable, as I do as well. The fact that the officer can be held accountable later also doesn't change the tragic loss of an innocent. And again, I bring up the idea of whether there would be sufficient accountability to begin with. One could look at specific departments and ask these questions. I'll leave which ones to your discretion.

I could then throw back at you the same question you asked me. How many innocent lives lost to police error or police misconduct are acceptable to you before we look beyond the criminal creating the situation, and at the general competency and trustworthiness of the police officers, not to mention the system that puts them on the streets to begin with, and to what level of accountability they are actually held?

There are systematic errors, just like in the courts, that can result in the loss of innocent life.

But none of this relates to the issue of capital punishment. There we do have a choice, independent of any other concerns. The choice is to still meter out punishment, in the form of life imprisonment, and to do so instead of death.

Suppose a criminal comes in my house and kills my wife and son. I know definitively as a witness that the person pulls the trigger and executes them both. Do I have the right to defend them? If I was unsucessful or too late to defend them, can I use retaliatory force to make right the value this criminal has taken from me? Or is my only option at this point to try to apprehend him/her and leave his/her fate to the state?

Why is capital punishment morally justified? I think that the reason it is morally justified is because if my wife and son were murdered, I'm going to have an expectation of the state to punish the criminal in proportion to the crime. No, that's not to say go kill his wife and kid, but to kill him, if he is found guilty. I would assume, I'm not the only one to hold that position. Therefore the state strongly needs to consider capital punishment, and make use of it. If they start avoiding capital punishment because there are other options, I think you will see more people take matters into their own hands. When the government acts on our behalf, it's supposed to do so with our consent, according to the rules we established, as Rand put it, "as if it were a robot."

If we grant the authority of the government to use the death penalty, it is in my mind obligated to use it rather than avoid it by use of some other punishment, as long as the person is properly convicted for a crime in which the death penalty is proper punishment. Now yes, I recognize that sticking point will be when is it proper, and that's probably why we are having this rather long conversation.

However, my own personal judgment of the state of today's legal system, especially considering precarious circumstances regarding jurors, I am wont to err on the side of conservatism and opt for life imprisonment rather than face the possibility of an ending an innocent life.

I respect that, and I am not trying to change your personal viewpoint.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The loss of the innocent life is still just as tragic, and it still occurred as an error on the part of the police officer.

Yes, the loss is tragic, but it is not an error on the part of the officer. For an error the officer is held morally and legally responsible. There is always an assumed risk in society, a necessary consequence for dealing with the criminal element that initiates force.

I could then throw back at you the same question you asked me.  How many innocent lives lost to police error or police misconduct are acceptable to you before we look beyond the criminal creating the situation, and at the general competency and trustworthiness of the police officers, not to mention the system that puts them on the streets to begin with, and to what level of accountability they are actually held?
I'll answer your question, but it is irrelevant to the main point, i.e., you are conflating two different situations, capital punishment and consequences from police enforcement. As to your question: Again, a police error is different from a consequence of a proper action. As to "competency," "trustworthiness," "accountability," etc., those are always issues of concern and should be a normal part of the entire policing system. But, regardless, there is no connection between any of this and the issue of capital punishment.

There are systematic errors, just like in the courts, that can result in the loss of innocent life.

If there are errors then we fix them, because the use of retaliatory force is a necessary and fundamental function for the police to do the job that is justifiably required of them. But with capital punishment we have a choice: we can irrevocably end a life, or sentence the person to life imprisonment. Capital punishment is morally justifiable, but the issue here is the legal status of such an act, considering the possibility of executing an innocent man.

Suppose a criminal comes in my house and kills my wife and son.  I know definitively as a witness that the person pulls the trigger and executes them both.  Do I have the right to defend them?
Was this meant as a rhetorical question? Of course you have the right of defense.

If I was unsucessful or too late to defend them, can I use retaliatory force to make right the value this criminal has taken from me?  Or is my only option at this point to try to apprehend him/her and leave his/her fate to the state?

Frankly, such a question coming from a policeman like yourself, seems a bit scary to me. Need I really remind you that your job as a policemen is to apprehend the criminal, not to administer justice as you see fit. Whether it is a policeman or a private citizen, the principle is the same: vigilante justice is just as much a criminal act as the criminal's act itself. I really am a bit shocked that you would seriously consider such an act.

I am bypassing the rest of your post, since it is based on similar reasoning as above. I would ask you to really check your premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, such a question coming from a policeman like yourself, seems a bit scary to me. Need I really remind you that your job as a policemen is to apprehend the criminal, not to administer justice as you see fit. Whether it is a policeman or a private citizen, the principle is the same: vigilante justice is just as much a criminal act as the criminal's act itself. I really am a bit shocked that you would seriously consider such an act.

One of the reasons I ask questions, even ones like this, is because the way I think and the way Objectivism views things may be two different things. I have already had to reevaluate some things that I believed, so there are some questions in my mind that still require asking so that I understand Objectivism better. Questions shouldn't scare you, although I could understand that statements might. Aside from more reading, questions also represent a good way to understand if there may be a disconnect in my manner of thinking vs. looking at things with objectivist principles as a guide. No doubt you have years behind you in studying and learning this philosophy whereas I do not.

If you have lost patience helping me try to reason through this with Objectivist philosophy in mind, I understand and I won't bother you further. None the less, I appreciate the patience you have shown so far, and the expression of your perspective. I still have another question, but I will wait to see your response to this one first.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I ask questions, even ones like this, is because the way I think and the way Objectivism views things may be two different things. I have already had to reevaluate some things that I believed, so there are some questions in my mind that still require asking so that I understand Objectivism better. Questions shouldn't scare you, although I could understand that statements might. Aside from more reading, questions also represent a good way to understand if there may be a disconnect in my manner of thinking vs. looking at things with objectivist principles as a guide. No doubt you have years behind you in studying and learning this philosophy whereas I do not.

If you have lost patience helping me try to reason through this with Objectivist philosophy in mind, I understand and I won't bother you further. None the less, I appreciate the patience you have shown so far, and the expression of your perspective. I still have another question, but I will wait to see your response to this one first.

VES

I am sorry if I misunderstood. It did not seem as if you were asking a question, not having an obvious answer yourself. And, the scary part was the thought that policemen might be going around dispensing justice on their own. Until now such a thought as that was reserved in my mind only for what I have seen in fictional television shows and movies. The thought never occurred to me that a real-life policeman might act that way.

I certainly have not "lost patience" with you. If anything, I am even more interested in continuing this discussion than before. So, please, feel free to ask whatever you like and I will make every effort to respond in as clear a way as I can. And, speaking of being clear, permit me to amplify a bit on what I previously said.

The moral justification for a government in general, and a police force in particular, is to protect the individual rights of the citizens. The individual citizens delegate certain rights to the government and grant the government exclusive use of retaliatory force. That means that citizens do not themselves use retaliatory force, unless in an emergency situation where the police authorities are not there to do their job.

The operations of the police, along with the law courts, are the means that retaliatory force is put under objective control. In this context, the main function of the police is to investigate and apprehend, and the function of the law court is to prosecute according to objective law. Just as it is not the function of a private citizen to dispense justice to those who break the law, neither is that the proper role for the police. Justice is the province of the law, and we all must respect that fact.

Again, I am sorry if I did misunderstand your intentions, and please do continue on with this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
That means that citizens do not themselves use retaliatory force, unless in an emergency situation where the police authorities are not there to do their job.

Interesting discussion.

May I ask, Stephen, for an example of when a citizen could properly use retaliatory force? Are you simply referring to force used in self-defense (which I agree to be proper), or something else?

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion.

May I ask, Stephen, for an example of when a citizen could properly use retaliatory force? Are you simply referring to force used in self-defense (which I agree to be proper), or something else?

I would say, as a matter of principle, only where inaction on your part would result in irreparable harm. One such obvious example would be if your life was threatened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, the scary part was the thought that policemen might be going around dispensing justice on their own.

Thanks for your continued assistance.

First let me clarify, at least so that you understand me manner of thinking, I'm going to draw a distinction between "going around dispensing justice" and the scenario of which I spoke. That distinction is that I do not, nor would, habitually or even occasionally go around supplanting my view of justice over law. Quite in reverse as a matter of fact when I have to deal with drug cases, which are admittedly rare for me.

However, the dynamic involved in the scenario I present, in which with what I would consider to be objective certainty that a person has murdered my wife and son, it would truly test my ability to remain objective and consider the law first. I am a husband and father before I am a policeman. I cannot honestly answer which path I would choose in that situation, but I do believe that I would submit myself to be held accountable in the aftermath if I chose vigilantism. I say this in all sincerity that perhaps you would be a better moral man than me in that situation.

The thought never occurred to me that a real-life policeman might act that way.
One need only look at the papers from time to time to see criminal misconduct on the part of the police. I would submit to you that in some of those instances, the officer(s) were acting under the color of what they perceived justice to be. For instance, robbing drug dealers. While you may look at it as simply a criminal act, I would submit that the officer(s) involved consider that the drug dealer "had it coming to him." The fact that there is personal gain for the officer is a separate issue. That in their minds is "dispensing justice".

To put this in real terms, consider the NYPD cops who shoved a plunger up a Haitian immigrants anus and then tried to make him eat feces because he had allegedly assaulted one of the officers. I would suggest that they were acting under the color of perceived justice. I would also suggest that the majority of instances of police brutality are issues of individual officers dispensing justice.

http://www.pww.org/archives97/97-08-23-2.html

Now that said, I don't think that police brutality is as epidemic as some would lead you to believe, but it's existence cannot be legitimately denied. The degree to which they are held accountable varies from department to department.

I certainly have not "lost patience" with you. If anything, I am even more interested in continuing this discussion than before.

Thank you.

This is where I think I'm having a "disconnect". I understand the reluctance to apply capital punishment in context of today's political sense. I understand at least one person has made a distinction between 100% certainty and 100% infallibility. However, why would the 100% certainty be acceptable if it still results in the potential loss of innocent life, when as you say, the option is always open for life imprisonment? The fact that objective standards may have been reached and applied doesn't negate the loss of life, or the damage caused to that individual and (potentially) to his loved ones.

The question is then, what makes capital punishment morally justifiable? The reason I question this is because even if we establish a totally objective process and eliminate whim, there remains the possibility of error, and thus eliminating an innocent life. I therefore think that absolute certainty can never be attained, and as such the death penalty could never be instituted without that risk. If my view is representative of reality, how can one morally justify something that cannot in reality be acheived? Once the criminal has left the scene, and time separates us from the event, we can only look back on it with imperfect glasses.

VES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jrshep
I would say, as a matter of principle, only where inaction on your part would result in irreparable harm. One such obvious example would be if your life was threatened.

Okay. I thought perhaps you meant something other than self-defense. I took "retaliatory" use of force to mean the punitive use of force, not just the use of force necessary in self-defense, leaving punishment to the justice system. But then, I see that you said earlier that "vigilante justice is just as much a criminal act as the criminal's act itself."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...