The death penalty?

[lee_merrill]

Though endlessly debated, I wonder how the death penalty is not considered a parallel with the exercise of lethal force by soldiers and policemen? For under the law, if you draw a gun on a policemen, or set up as a sniper, you may well be shot, or (how is this not) executed, and this may be viewed as carrying out a just response, a punishment.

[DukeOfEastaboga]

I think the idea of using lethal force is that the officer has a right to protect him/herself and that punishment is meant to rehabilitate the offender. However, under some offenders are unable to be rehabilitated and must be removed to protect society.

[lee_merrill]

I think the idea of using lethal force is that the officer has a right to protect him/herself and that punishment is meant to rehabilitate the offender.
Yet punishment and rehabilitation are not synonyms, and if as you said, some cannot be rehabilitated, they should not be in society, if they are dangerous to others.

But these aspects cannot be weighed in a split second by a policeman, and yet there is more than self-defense here, for not just any person can demand that people halt in the name of the law. And if they do not halt, there are consequences, and SWAT team snipers administer such consequences, and are not arguably acting in self-defense.

These consequences I would say should be viewed as penalties, lawful penalties, and corollaries to the death penalty.

[Darth Executor]

Though endlessly debated, I wonder how the death penalty is not considered a parallel with the exercise of lethal force by soldiers and policemen? For under the law, if you draw a gun on a policemen, or set up as a sniper, you may well be shot, or (how is this not) executed, and this may be viewed as carrying out a just response, a punishment.

To apply the death penalty you need to have someone in your custody. Soldiers and policemen apply lethal force when the individual is still at large and a danger to everybody else.

[lee_merrill]

To apply the death penalty you need to have someone in your custody. Soldiers and policemen apply lethal force when the individual is still at large and a danger to everybody else.
But what I am after is more the essence here, certainly a death penalty is different in these aspects, but it is fundamentally different than what soldiers and policemen may do?

I believe not, their actions are under the law, and also seem to me in these instances, penalties, if someone does some deed, they may expect some painful result, and possibly death, within the law's sanction--I would call that a penalty, and a death penalty.

[Darth Executor]

But what I am after is more the essence here, certainly a death penalty is different in these aspects, but it is fundamentally different than what soldiers and policemen may do?

I think it is. Killing someone in an ongoing confrontation may be necessary to protect others. Killing someone when you're holding him captive isn't necessary to protect others.

[lee_merrill]

I think it is. Killing someone in an ongoing confrontation may be necessary to protect others. Killing someone when you're holding him captive isn't necessary to protect others.
Certainly I recognize these differences, but I'm asking if such actions as policemen take can be called penalties, lawful penalties, I believe that indeed, they are.

[A-Man]

Certainly I recognize these differences, but I'm asking if such actions as policemen take can be called penalties, lawful penalties, I believe that indeed, they are.

I agree, Lee. Whether or not its called a death penalty is another matter. What if a cop shoots an assailant in the leg? Would that be called an injury penalty? What does your local/state police call it when a cop kills someone?

[Darth Executor]

Certainly I recognize these differences, but I'm asking if such actions as policemen take can be called penalties, lawful penalties, I believe that indeed, they are.

Whether they can be called "penalties" isn't really relevant as the purpose of the death penalty and the purpose of shooting someone in a confrontation are different. Just because people are lawfully killed in both instances does not make them both a "death penalty".

[lee_merrill]

What if a cop shoots an assailant in the leg? Would that be called an injury penalty?
Certainly this phrase applies to what happened, I agree.

Whether they can be called "penalties" isn't really relevant as the purpose of the death penalty and the purpose of shooting someone in a confrontation are different.
But still, why are they not both penalties? I agree that the overall purpose is different, my argument is not that these two are the same, only that they have a common aspect, there is in both a penalty of death.

Abraham Lincoln was out chopping wood one day, and his little sister got too close to where he was cutting, without his knowledge, and was hit by the ax. When their mother came out to deal with his sister, Abe said "She's been punished enough"...

[Darth Executor]

But still, why are they not both penalties?

Did I say they're not? I said it's irrelevant.

I agree that the overall purpose is different, my argument is not that these two are the same, only that they have a common aspect, there is in both a penalty of death.


You said " I wonder how the death penalty is not considered a parallel with the exercise of lethal force by soldiers and policemen? "

I explained to you why it's not considered a parallel. Just because you approve of one does not mean you should approve of the other.

[Jim_Casy]

Though endlessly debated, I wonder how the death penalty is not considered a parallel with the exercise of lethal force by soldiers and policemen? For under the law, if you draw a gun on a policemen, or set up as a sniper, you may well be shot, or (how is this not) executed, and this may be viewed as carrying out a just response, a punishment.

Making one distinction - police and soldiers are not synonymous* - the parallel between the death penalty and just war is made explicit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The guidelines for capital punishment tightly parallels the criteria to determine a just war; both are seen as actions that can be justified as a last resort in the face of a grave threat to the common good. In practice, modern societies rarely confront situations in which no other alternative but deliberate killing is necessary, thus capital punishment and war are seen as largely unjustified abuses of state authority in these societies.

I'm one of those people (like the current pope) who questions whether modern technology has negated virtually all possibility of meeting just war criteria, thus making war as a means of settling differences morally obsolete. As for the death penalty, there's no questioning - it has no moral justification in our time and place, and should be abolished immediately.


*Police are trained to enforce laws and contain threats to public safety, while soldiers are trained to kill and destroy for state objectives. Soldiers are not trained to resolve conflicts or maintain security or use non-lethal force - that's not their job.

[technomage]

Though endlessly debated, I wonder how the death penalty is not considered a parallel with the exercise of lethal force by soldiers and policemen? For under the law, if you draw a gun on a policemen, or set up as a sniper, you may well be shot, or (how is this not) executed, and this may be viewed as carrying out a just response, a punishment.

While I can see the logic, there is still a distinction. Someone who is shot while they are in the process of threatening other people with deadly force is not necessarily going to die, and for the police use of deadly force is a last resort. Indeed, police units all over the US are looking for non-lethal and less-lethal means of dealing with violent people.

[technomage]

Hi, Jim--got a minor quible....

Soldiers are not trained to resolve conflicts or maintain security or use non-lethal force - that's not their job.

Training in conflict resolution and security is starting to be the case in the US military: however, it is not true for a majority of troops, and I quite agree that it's not their primary job function.

[Teallaura]

A penalty is a deliberate and intentional punishment for a crime. It is distinguished by the involvement of the judicial system proper. While Lincoln may have felt his sister had suffered enough for her indiscretion (with which I agree) in point of fact she was not punished - Lincoln intervened on her behalf and his mother relented. Calling the injury she suffered 'punishment' is correct only in the non-penal sense.

The use of force to detain or even to kill when circumstances demand for the protection of self or others is likewise not penal punishment. No penalty has been extracted as no judgment has ever been pronounced (or in the case of death ever would be). The only arguable way to call such events penal punishment is to assume that the judge in the case is the Lord Himself.

There is no more penalty involved (excluding Divine judgment for the moment) than death by accident or manslaughter. Self-defense, defense of others and manslaughter are not acts of retribution and cannot be described as exacting penalty hence the results are likewise not penalties in any reasonable understanding of the term.

[lee_merrill]

Calling the injury she suffered 'punishment' is correct only in the non-penal sense.
So then a spanking is not a punishment? Being grounded for a week?

The only arguable way to call such events penal punishment is to assume that the judge in the case is the Lord Himself.
"For he does not bear the sword in vain." (Rom. 13)

Indeed, Paul speaks as if the acts of judicial authorities are judgments and punishments from people ordained by God.

Self-defense, defense of others and manslaughter are not acts of retribution and cannot be described as exacting penalty ...
I would say they are though, if a person does X, they may expect Y as a result, and Y is a just response inflicting some deterring (perhaps for others) pain as a consequence--even pain of death. This is justice with inflicted pain here, which seems certainly a punishment.

[Teallaura]

So then a spanking is not a punishment? Being grounded for a week?Spanking and grounding would both fall under penal - they are delibrately selected consequences of the judicial authority - in this case Mom or Dad.


"For he does not bear the sword in vain." (Rom. 13)

Indeed, Paul speaks as if the acts of judicial authorities are judgments and punishments from people ordained by God.But you've missed the distinction - police are enforcement (in our system they aren't even under the judicial branch - they are exec functions) not judicial. Judicial is specific to judging/ruling. Lawyers are functionaries of the judicial system but their decisions are not judgments/rulings in terms of law. So to even if you have police under the judicial system they would only be functionaries not judges. It's the formal judgment that makes the distinction because only then is the accused afforded any means of legal defense (also true in the court of Mom and Dad). No valid judgment is made without an opportunity to defend against the charges (I can't think of a single system, even those based on guilty until proven innocent, that doesn't allow for a defense. Even trials in abstentia allow a defense).

The officer's judgment is not of guilt or innocence but of how to deal with the situation. His judgment allows no defense (presuming violent confrontation which was what you were discussing) and as a result is not valid for the purposes of guilt or innocence. Remember to an officer can make a mistake - is he carrying out justice when he accidently shoots the victim?

With no 'trial' (no matter how unfair or informal) and /or no judge there is no valid judgment and no penal penalty is inflicted. Therefore your premise would only be true here if we were discussing divine judgment - and we both know that not every unfortunate outcome is divine judgment. A burglar falling off a wet roof killing himself probably wasn't being divinely judged, just stupid.



I would say they are though, if a person does X, they may expect Y as a result, and Y is a just response inflicting some deterring (perhaps for others) pain as a consequence--even pain of death. This is justice with inflicted pain here, which seems certainly a punishment.
You think a child burning his hand on a stove is justly rewarded? We do call the infliction of pain 'punishment' but never in the penal sense without some form of judgment. There is no judgment other than the person's own - how then are they tried and convicted? Are you equally justly served when you run into a cactus even though you knew that would hurt?

Let's allow this point. You do X knowing Y to be the probable result and y is sufficiently unpleasant that it will have a deterrent effect. So when Bob does X he has in effect condemned himself to Y, correct? How does this translate to your opening scenario? Bob opens fire on Policeman Fred. Policeman Fred returns fire killing Bob. Your scenario has Policeman Fred meting out justice but following your logic Bob himself has 'sentenced' himself. Policeman Fred has done nothing in the judicial sense at all.

There are only two ways I can see of making your case work. One would be self-judgment - John does X knowingly and with malice (or stupidity) aforethought thereby condemning himself to Y. John therefore can be said to be self-condemning even in a court of law protesting his innocence - he did X whether he admits it or not. The other is divine judgment which would mean that if Policeman Fred is indeed meting out justice it is as a tool of God and by no volition (other than allowing himself to be so used presuming free will in the matter) of his own. What I cannot come up with is a way to say that Policeman Fred has himself meted out justice - we call that vigilantism and it is itself a crime. In both of my postulates Policeman Fred is a tool, not the judge. If Policeman Fred takes it upon himself to judge them justice has not been served no matter if Bob is guilty or not.

[lee_merrill]

Spanking and grounding would both fall under penal - they are delibrately selected consequences of the judicial authority - in this case Mom or Dad.
And no judge and jury is required, yes, agreed.

The officer's judgment is not of guilt or innocence but of how to deal with the situation.
I think he does judge guilt or innocence, though no formal verdict is brought. Note how policemen can question a suspect, what are they evaluating, if not guilt and innocence? So then their actions reflect their decision, and may be viewed a penal if they are doing forcible restraint, for locking a person in handcuffs is a form of imprisonment, merited by certain deeds.

Though mistakes can be made, but this doesn't mean judges aren't deciding punishments if one of them makes some errors.

Are you equally justly served when you run into a cactus even though you knew that would hurt?
In a sense, yes, but not in the sense I mean here, where the officer makes a decision to bring consequences on a person.

Bob opens fire on Policeman Fred. Policeman Fred returns fire killing Bob. Your scenario has Policeman Fred meting out justice but following your logic Bob himself has 'sentenced' himself. Policeman Fred has done nothing in the judicial sense at all.
I would say the policemen evaluated him guilty of attempted murder, and carried out a penalty allowed under the law. I would call this not only self-defense, but also justice.

Yes, Bob sentences himself as well, but only in the sense that someone who steals has incurred a penalty of multiplied restitution.

In both of my postulates Policeman Fred is a tool, not the judge.
Yet he does evaluate guilt or innocence, though imperfectly. He then decides on consequences if the person is apparently guilty, and a person in handcuffs is I think being punished as well as restrained, as much as being in a prison involves both.

Blessings,
Lee

[Teallaura]

How is he evaluating guilt or innocence? He's evaluating the situation, not the suspect. They call them suspects for a reason. :wink:

[lee_merrill]

How is he evaluating guilt or innocence? He's evaluating the situation, not the suspect. They call them suspects for a reason. :wink:
Well, I am not a suspect! Or so I think. So there is reason for this conclusion, and a bit of evaluation before someone is suspect...

And someone who shoots a gun at a police officer is not so properly a suspect, I would say, and there is a response to this that I think could be viewed as indeed--a punishment.

Blessings,
Lee

[Psalm89]

I used to support the death penalty, but no more.

1. It is coercion of a very violent nature.
2. Modern governments have lost the right to the death penalty assuming they ever had it at all. In the last century the nation states have killed millions upon millions of their own citizens.
3. We have the money and ability to incarcerate someone indefinitely.

[joel]

From one libertarian to another...

I used to support the death penalty, but no more.

1. It is coercion of a very violent nature.

Libertarian philosophy does not preclude retaliation that fits the crime. The death penalty may in fact be warranted.


2. Modern governments have lost the right to the death penalty assuming they ever had it at all. In the last century the nation states have killed millions upon millions of their own citizens.
No government has any rights. There are no collective rights. Only individual rights. It is the individuals that always have the right to retaliation, which they must exercise by means of government.


3. We have the money and ability to incarcerate someone indefinitely.That is relevant only if that (and not the death penalty) is the appropriate penalty.


The one good libertarian argument against the death penalty is that: even in the situation where the guilty party does deserve the death penalty, if we cannot know beyond all doubt that such-and-such person is the guilty party, then there is no way we can make restitution to that person if, after the execution, it turns out that we were wrong.

[joel]

And someone who shoots a gun at a police officer is not so properly a suspect, I would say, and there is a response to this that I think could be viewed as indeed--a punishment.
Every individual (not just police officers) has the natural right to defend himself (using lethal force if necessary) if someone initiates force against them.