Would you flip the switch on for this one?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by aneeshm
...she has forfeited her right to live.

Please prove.

[SlowwHand]

Execute her.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lorizael


Please prove.

I just did. I cannot claim to be protected by, or even to possess, a right I do not respect or recognise. By killing, you prove that you do not respect or recognise the other person's right to live, and thus you cannot invoke that right to protect yourself, because you do not recognise it.

[SlowwHand]

Wrong.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Wrong.

Was that directed at me? If so, how?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I just did. I cannot claim to be protected by, or even to possess, a right I do not respect or recognise. By killing, you prove that you do not respect or recognise the other person's right to live, and thus you cannot invoke that right to protect yourself, because you do not recognise it.

I disagree, but for the moment I'll give this to you.

Now, she has forfeited her right to live.

What part of forfeiting her right to live means that she must, in fact, die? Why must the state immediately move into the territory of her now extinguished right? What moral imperative is there, now that she has no right to live, to actually kill her?

If no such imperative exists, does the state not sacrifice its own right to existence when it fails to recognize this right in others? The state may recognize the right to live, but it does not recognize the sanctity of this right. It is a right that should be valued and held above other things, or it is no right at all.

If rights are an inalienable concept (and I see no reason for them to exist if they are not) then despite the fact that she has given up her own right to live, the state is essentially saying that no such right to live exists in the first place, because it has the power to take away someone else's life whenever the right to live has been lost.

[SlowwHand]

We've been down this road so many times,
and I'm not getting into an extended discussion on it again.
The law is the deterrent. IE: If you murder, your own life is forefeit.
The sentence is the penalty for not being deterred.

Nothing is more dangerous than a convict with nothing to lose. IE: A life sentence with no parole.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You do possess rights which you do not respect in others. Assuming she is guilty, she has forfeited her right to live. Killing her is not wrong.

I'm assuming that you mean "don't possess rights..."

Wrong.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Lorizael


I disagree, but for the moment I'll give this to you.

Now, she has forfeited her right to live.

What part of forfeiting her right to live means that she must, in fact, die? Why must the state immediately move into the territory of her now extinguished right? What moral imperative is there, now that she has no right to live, to actually kill her?

If no such imperative exists, does the state not sacrifice its own right to existence when it fails to recognize this right in others? The state may recognize the right to live, but it does not recognize the sanctity of this right. It is a right that should be valued and held above other things, or it is no right at all.

If rights are an inalienable concept (and I see no reason for them to exist if they are not) then despite the fact that she has given up her own right to live, the state is essentially saying that no such right to live exists in the first place, because it has the power to take away someone else's life whenever the right to live has been lost.

I disagree.

Once she has proven that she has forfeiter her right to live (or rather, not to be killed), it would not be wrong for any random person to kill her. She doesn't possess that right any longer, remember?

[KrazyHorse]

The law is the deterrent. IE: If you murder, your own life is forefeit.

That deterrent doesn't work. Especially not when you execute all of ~1% of murderers.

Certainty of punishment is a better deterrent than harshness of punishment. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

If you are willing to execute all convicted murderers, then the deterrent argument actually comes into play. Unfortunately, you also assure that some hundreds of innocent people will be executed every year.

[Spec]

God...did she even read the instruction manual?!!

It clearly states:'' Do not use to dry animals''

She would have figured out it doesn't work for babies either...

Spec.

[Lorizael]

Imperative. Moral imperative. What moral imperative is there to kill her, now that she has forfeited the right. Why must the state kill her? What justification does the state have?

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Donegeal
I say put her into a microwave (...)

[Pekka]

In case of citizen versus citizen, I would agree that by invading the other person's security and right to be left alone and unharmed, when you go and do that harm or TRY to do that harm, you have effectively taken away your own right to be unharmed. That is, the other person can harm you in self defense. But ONLY because there is a clause for self defense.

So that overrides the attackers right.

However, when we have captured the suspect, found them guilty, I do not see how they are then giving their rights away. In fact, criminals do have rights and we need to recognize that in a civilized democracy. How FAR you want to push those rights, that's another matter. I don't support pampering criminals, especially violent criminals. But I don't think the state should punish them with beatings or execution either.

If we disagree wiht this, we will go down the road of eye for an eye. Some people think this is still a viable and good solution though. I disagree with it, but I would like to claim the right for a person to live in peace, that is, self defense rights to the maximum. And the state also has the duty to protect the citizens from violent criminals. That is, if they are categorized as violent criminals. The rights of the citizens are more important than the freedom of multiple offender of violent crimes, or SERIOUS violent crimes.

If we go about giving beatings or execution as official policy of the state, after the incident, I would see that as retribution more than a punishment and securing the lands. That is, it doesn't do any more good to protect the citizens, and thus it is only a retribution if physical harm is to be done to these offenders.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

The law is the deterrent. IE: If you murder, your own life is forefeit.

That deterrent doesn't work. Especially not when you execute all of ~1% of murderers.

Certainty of punishment is a better deterrent than harshness of punishment. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

If you are willing to execute all convicted murderers, then the deterrent argument actually comes into play. Unfortunately, you also assure that some hundreds of innocent people will be executed every year.

24 in Texas this year were executed.
People can make an idiotic remark and say it's due solely to Texas crime, but take into consideration land area and population, then do the math.
We're just doing our part, while others aren't.