Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Nov 2000 22:30:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1138 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> Christopher Weeks wrote:
> > Not to be difficult, but I don't. :-) Well, sometimes. I think
> > that some premeditated slayings should be accepted by society. If
> > I am on a murder jury and it turns out that the perp killed someone
> > who raped his daughter. I will never convict him.
>
> This stance kind of troubles me. It suggests that not only do you view
> the death penalty as an appropriate penalty for rape,
Hi Frank,
When you say that I approve of "the death pnealty" it sounds like you're
talking about a court-ordered penalty. I don't believe that courts should pass
out death. Ever. Really!
One of my stances is this: Government (at all, I mean as a very paradigm of
social interaction) is just barely tolerable if it works right. Working right,
to me, is in essence, capitalizing on the synergy of involvement of multiple
persons in the accomplishment of some good and worthy task. Killing off the
citizenry does not qualify.
Another is this: In certain cases, it is acceptable and expected for people to
act outside of what is normally considered acceptable. One of the infinitude
of possible examples is that if someone hurts a loved one of mine, I may in my
limited capacity for rational and empathic thought, hurt them in return. It
isn't a matter of rightnes, or justice. It is how psychology works.
Another is this: Given the context of a governance society, we have laws.
Things like killing people need to be against the law. And, we have juries.
Juries are not only for determining when a law was broken, but also if it is
reasonable to punish the perpetrator for this particular instance of
lawlessness. I think that our juries should be encouraged to more readily sit
in judgement of circumstancial lawlessness.
In the example of killing the rapist of a daughter, a person might be forgiven
for such an action (but not if it became a trend, I suppose), but the
government needs to be held to a higher standard. If the government is not
above the mistakes of the people individually, then what the hell is it for?
Why do we tolerate it at all?
> but you don't even
> expect that the alleged perpetrator should get a trial.
When the state is punishing yes. When a victim is retaliating, what trial is
needed? If you are beaten by your coworker, what can some kind of trial tell
you? You know who did it and what they did.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I think there's a big difference between an act of self defense, and chasing someone down after the fact. Vigilante justice should not be tolerated. I know that it is a very fine line, but my feeling is that once a perpetrator is leaving the (...) (24 years ago, 18-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) This stance kind of troubles me. It suggests that not only do you view the death penalty as an appropriate penalty for rape, but you don't even expect that the alleged perpetrator should get a trial. (24 years ago, 17-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
