The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[js207]

I cannot see how the dreadful law you quoted, which allows a person to execute a robber (not a killer) trying to escape with some property by shooting him in the back, enables that person (the killer) to say, the robbery backfired!

I'd say ending up dead as a result is just about the ultimate in backfiring. Most of the US has a law of 'felony murder', that a death which occurs in the commission of a felony (for example, someone you run over while making a getaway in a stolen car, or someone gets shot in your armed bank robbery) is legally considered to have been murdered by the perpetrators, because the original cause of the death was the crime itself, even if otherwise the death would have been a less serious charge (run someone over while driving your own car legally, it isn't classed as murder unless you actually drove at them deliberately). England and Wales had this rule too, but weakened it in 1957 to apply only to crimes of personal violence.

If I crash a stolen car and die through my own fault, or because I am drunk, that is an unfortunate accident that prevents justice running its course.

I neither see that as unfortunate (as long as nobody else is harmed: as I've said, I have no objection to criminals dying from their crimes) nor as having prevented justice from running its course. As for the booby-trapped car, if you hadn't stolen it nobody would have been harmed, so why is it the owner's fault rather than your own? My booby-trapped car is entirely safe, as long as nobody tries stealing it!

Much like the idiots every year who illegally obtain display-grade fireworks, not knowing that the fuses on them are non-delay ones (designed for remote triggering, or having a separate delay fuse attached), or indeed the IRA bombers who started experimenting with radio controlled detonators - then learned the hard way that anyone can send radio signals, not just the person assembling the bomb. Do you object to terrorists getting blown up by their own bombs thanks to radio jamming, too?

On a relevant footnote, I was relieved to see the Crown Prosecution Service declining to bring any charges over the stabbing of the burglar John Bennell in Salford this June. At the very least, one less burglar out there - and it wouldn't surprise me if burglary rates in the area fell afterwards too.

[Thorne]

MMI,

You and I have had this discussion before, and I see little has changed. However, in the situation described, a victim killing a robber AFTER the fact, while the robber is running away, that certainly does seem to me to be unjustified. By that time there is no threat to your life, or the lives of anyone else, and you would then be killing someone for the price of a few possessions. If I were on a jury on such a case I would have no problem with convicting the killer of manslaughter, at least.

However, there is still the situation of killing a robber while in the act! If you come upon a person robbing your home, or you are accosted by someone on the street, I maintain that you have a right to defend yourself and your property by any means, up to and including lethal force. You have no way of knowing the intentions of the burglar/robber, no way of knowing whether or not he is armed, and a reasonable fear of being injured or killed. I see no problem with stopping the robber, even if it means killing him.

As for booby-trapping your property, as far as I know it's illegal here in the US to do something which is deliberately fatal, or reasonably can be considered to be life-threatening. That doesn't prohibit you from trapping your property in such a way that the robber will be caught but not killed. It's just considered bad form to actually kill them in this manner. Too much chance of an innocent person setting off the trap accidentally.

[MMI]

JS

The robbery would have backfired if there was something about the way it was carried out that caused the robber to die. But for a man to assassinate a thief after the robbery had been executed is an entirely different thing, and, as Thorne says, the killing is unjustified because it takes place "after the fact" and is caused by something other than a desire to protect life or property. The law is disgraceful.

As for the "felony murder" you describe, I don't have too much of an issue with making an accidental killing during the commission of a crime, murder, but I see that as entirely separate from the situation where a householder kills a burglar to prevent escape. As you say, the death was caused by the crime in the first instance, but it was a separate act that was not caused by the crime in the second. The householder had a choice and chose to take justice into his own hands. He was free to let the police do their jobs and apprehend the thief later.

Your statement that if a car thief dies during the theft, that is neither unfortunate nor a prevention of justice is revealing. I am tempted to cease this discussion immediately, because I doubt there is any point continuing it. I cannot accept that death has any role in a civilised penal system - not even where genocide has been committed, or where the killer is a compulsive serial killer who if let loose will repeat his crimes over and over until he dies of old age. These people should be removed from society, but they need not be killed. So to say that a person's death in a car accident is "justice" because the car was stolen is abhorrent to me. There is nothing "just" about a quirk of fate, however satisfying you might find it to be.

Your argument about the booby-trapped car verges on the ludicrous. To answer your question quite simply, there are many alternative and effective ways of protecting a car from theft, so to make it a death trap is unnecessary to stop it being stolen. You have many other choices, but you choose to use a method that kills indiscriminately. That is deliberate murder, and the pretence that you are protecting your property is fatuous.

Yes I do object to the killing of terrorists by remote jamming in the same way as I would object to ending a hostage situation by tossing in a hand grenade. It is indiscriminate. The chances of success are low. The chances of innocent victims being killed at the same time as the terrorists are high. There is absolutely no connection with the administration of justice, even where the jamming is done to prevent a crime. There are better alternatives.

With reference to your footnote, I suspect the only reason the CPS did not proceed with the prosecution was because it felt it could not secure a guilty verdict, not because it felt Bennell got what he deserved. As for your hope that his example would serve as a deterrent, have you seen the news from Salford tonight? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-14467588

[js207]

I am tempted to cease this discussion immediately, because I doubt there is any point continuing it. I cannot accept that death has any role in a civilised penal system - not even where genocide has been committed, or where the killer is a compulsive serial killer who if let loose will repeat his crimes over and over until he dies of old age.

You're welcome to that belief, but study after study shows that, in the UK at least, that unconditional rejection puts you in quite a small minority: to assert that something is inherently 'wrong' simply because a minority disagrees with it is shaky ground indeed - 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.

To answer your question quite simply, there are many alternative and effective ways of protecting a car from theft, so to make it a death trap is unnecessary to stop it being stolen.

I never argued that it was necessary, making that a flawed rebuttal. Yes, of course there are other options - so what?

There is absolutely no connection with the administration of justice, even where the jamming is done to prevent a crime. There are better alternatives.

I didn't say it was about administration of anything, but about soldiers defending themselves by destroying devices used to attack both them and civilians - in much the same way the RAF would shoot down Luftwaffe bombers attacking Britain. No doubt some of those shot down bombers harmed people on the ground, despite the RAF's efforts - do you think that wrong as well, that those bombers should have been allowed through unobstructed in case their pilots get harmed? The idea our troops should refrain from interfering with IRA bombs in case those planting them and those accompanying them get hurt by their own attack strikes me as beyond absurd.

[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.

[IAN 2411]

Although i find the last ten posts very interesting i believe that you have sidestepped the OP question, and the debate that is being carried out should be in a thread of its own about the morals and justification of murder and premeditated murder.

No disrespect to the content intended.

Be well IAN 2411

[MMI]

Although i find the last ten posts very interesting i believe that you have sidestepped the OP question, and the debate that is being carried out should be in a thread of its own about the morals and justification of murder and premeditated murder.

No disrespect to the content intended.

Be well IAN 2411

I think we are still on topic, but as I am so strongly opposed to the death penalty, my views have been tested with regard to victims of crime who kill protecting their property, and now with regard to wartime situations.

I am also unsure whether life should mean life, but I find it incongruous that robbers can be incarcerated longer than killers.