The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[DuncanONeil]

First I trimmed your post because You are entited to personally held beliefs. But I feel constrained to respond to the view of Every random Joe Blow running out and getting a firearm, and carrying it around, because it is allowed.
Every law permitted Concealed Carry (CCW) mandates training and a permitting process. There are two different languages in the law; one is "shall" issue and the other is "may" issue. In either case the permit is controlled by law enforcement. Certain categories are prohibited in the law. All such laws require training. But all that aside there is only a small percentage of the people that will avail themselves of the right to carry. It is the uncertainty that offers deterrence. Currently there are only two states in the US that do not allow CCW, I happen to live in one and the President comes from the other. Think on this for a moment, while it is illegal to CCW where I live it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm in an open fashion! That means I could strap on a holster, put my 9mm Bersa in it, go out and conduct my daily chores and be perfectly legal!

The idea of untrained members of the public carrying weapons in public is horrifying. To allow it is licensing vigilante-ism, which is utterly despicable. The prospect of people pulling a gun on another at the merest suggestion of trouble does not bear contemplation, and any authorities that encourage it are, in my opinion, reckless of the law and order they are supposed to enforce, and complicit in any deaths that result. There are no longer any new frontiers where savages and outlaws are liable to swoop down any second and massacre us for our trinkets. There is no danger of redcoats swooping down from Canada to steal hard-won liberties. There's not even any danger of the elected rulers usurping power and overthrowing the constitution - not even where the ruler is a black moslem-loving communist.

[DuncanONeil]

Thank you Thorne!

I knew I could drive you back into your shell!


Absolutely! That's why I support mandatory training, with frequent refresher courses.


Obviously you've never strolled through a city park after sundown. In most cities I wouldn't recommend it without Kevlar and an assault rifle.


One thing you have to give the British credit for: they learn from their mistakes. After getting their butts handed to them twice they're not likely to try again; and they eventually got rid of those silly red uniforms!


What about to save someone else? If I see a man walking into a daycare center carrying a large machete, say, and I have the opportunity to take him out, but not the ability to reach him before he enters the building, should I pop him in the back and save countless kids? Or should I dial 911, wait on hold for 3 minutes, then have the police summoned? I know what I'd do!


And just who is to define reasonable? You? The criminal? His family? These things happen in seconds! There's no time for reasonable, only for reaction, which is why training is so important.


All killings are investigated as manslaughter. The difference between the US and England seems to be that the victim (the person attacked) is not presumed to be guilty because he defended himself.


Except in the most extreme circumstances, of course.


These controls already exist. They are ineffective.


Laws allowing citizens to take action in their own self defense certainly stops a lot of criminals.


But these people are not the source of the problem. Sure, accidents do happen, but they are very rare, and can result in charges of criminal negligence when they do occur. An average citizen who, for whatever reason, goes off his rocker and decides to kill his whole family will find a way to do so with or without guns. Regardless of the controls, the professional criminals will still get hold of weapons, and still use them, because they will know that their victims will not be able to fight back effectively.

[DuncanONeil]

The problem here is that there is gun control and then there is GUN CONTROL.

Much of what Thorne had said in regard to training and the permitting process is a form of gun control. Too often "gun control" is understood to mean a limit on ownership. This is actually illegal in the US.

"Monday, June 28, 2010

Supreme Court rules Second Amendment applies to states
Hillary Stemple at 11:15 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The US Supreme Court ... on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF] 5-4 in McDonald v. Chicago ... that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment ... right to bear arms applicable to the states as well as the federal government. The case arose over a city of Chicago ordinance effectively banning the possession of handguns. ... Justice Samuel Alito, delivering the opinion of the court, cited the court's 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller ... and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, stating:

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.

(http://jurist.org/paperchase/2010/06...-to-states.php)

I only introduced gun control as an alternative to imposing capital punishment, den. I'll debate the merits of gun control with anyone till the come home, but that wasn't my purpose in the last message.

[Thorne]

Too often "gun control" is understood to mean a limit on ownership.

I don't know where I got this (it might even have been somewhere here) but it seems appropriate.

[MMI]

1. We've been in and out of Afghanistan since 1842, and never won, and never learnt

2. Yes, we had to leave the USA afte the first revolution, but I didn't think that was the point you were making. After the second, USA had to leave Canada (where it hadn't already been driven out, that is).

[Thorne]

1. We've been in and out of Afghanistan since 1842, and never won, and never learnt

Apparently they US hasn't learned anything from all the other countries who haven't learned anything about Afghanistan, either.

2. Yes, we had to leave the USA afte the first revolution, but I didn't think that was the point you were making. After the second, USA had to leave Canada (where it hadn't already been driven out, that is).

I wasn't trying to make a point, per se, just teasing. So okay, the US had to leave Canada. So what? Other than hockey and polar bears what have they got to offer? (Geez! I can already feel the indignation blasting down like an Arctic freeze! Give it a rest, guys! I'm kidding! I like hockey! Polar bears, too. And there are plenty of Canadian actors who pretend to be Americans so they can make a lot of our money! So take it easy on me, eh?)

[MMI]

I don't know where I got this (it might even have been somewhere here) but it seems appropriate.

Amusing, and illustrates precisely the false logic used to undermine gun-control. The question is not, would the dead woman be alive if she'd had a gun (my own view is that 80% of the time, she probably wouldn't have had time to pull the gun and shoot it), but, was the dead man really a rapist?

Furthermore, if the maximum penalty for rape is (say) lifetime in prison, what gives a woman the right to summarily execute men she is afraid of, or over-possessive fathers the right to murder kids whom they suspect of taking advantage of their innocent daughters?

[denuseri]

Everyone should have a right to defend themselves from an attacker!

[MMI]

True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.

[Thorne]

True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.

So what you're saying is that the only possible reason to kill someone is because you are absolutely positive they are going to kill you? That's absurd! Until they actually fire the weapon there's no possible way to know your attacker's intentions. Is that man coming at you with a knife to kill you? Or just to cut your face up? Or maybe just to frighten you? How can you know until the knife is buried in your chest?

No, in the US, at least, everyone has the right to defend himself and his property at all times, even if it means the death of an attacker. There are limits, certainly, but a general rule of thumb is that the criminal is responsible for all actions occurring during the commission of a crime. The victim, or a good Samaritan coming to the victim's aid, cannot be held liable if the criminal is killed.

And the threat of violence is enough. There is no possible way to expect a victim to accept rapes, beatings, serious injuries, anything short of death, without defending herself to the max. And one thing is certain: a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender.

And for the record, any convicted rapist, or home invader, or mugger, is likely to leave prison long before the emotional damage done to his victims has passed. Those who survive, at least.

[denuseri]

Most all of the following I got from Wikki:

Its just FYI.

In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person. The choice of permitted weapons depends on the state; some states restrict the weapons to a single handgun, whereas others permit multiple handguns or martial arts weapons to be carried.

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) is a more generalized term. Various states give different terms for licenses or permits to carry a concealed firearm, such as a Concealed Handgun License/Permit (CHL/CHP), Concealed (Defensive/Deadly) Weapon Permit/License (CDWL/CWP/CWL), Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL), License To Carry (Firearms) (LTC/LTCF), Carry of Concealed Deadly Weapon license (CCDW), and similar, with at least one exception, Tennessee, which issues a "Handgun Carry Permit," since state law does not require a person with a permit to carry the handgun concealed.

Although the current trend towards adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, no state which has adopted a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law has reversed its decision. As of February 2008[update], 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and all but 6 provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry". The states of Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction. The District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976; this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the United States Supreme Court.

Some states require concealed carry applicants to participate in a training course, which includes a classroom at a minimum. Depending on the state, a practical component during which the attendee shoots the weapon for the purpose of demonstrating safety and proficiency, may be required. Such courses are often completed in one to two days. The classroom topics typically include firearm mechanics and terminology, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon.

Most required CCW training courses devote a considerable amount of time to liability issues. Even when self-defense is justified there can be serious civil liabilities related to self-defense. For example, if innocent bystanders are hurt or killed there could be both civil and criminal liabilities even if the use of deadly force was completely justified. Some states also technically allow an assailant who is shot by a gun owner to bring civil action. However, a majority of states who allow concealed or open carry forbid suits being brought in such cases, either by barring lawsuits for damages resulting from a criminal act on the part of the plaintiff, or by granting the gun owner immunity from such a civil suit if it is found that he or she was justified in shooting.

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.

During the range portion of the course the applicant typically learns and demonstrates safe handling and operation of a firearm and accurate shooting from common self-defense distances. Some states require a certain proficiency to receive a passing grade, whereas other states (e.g., Florida) technically require only a single-shot be fired to demonstrate handgun handling proficiency. Some states (e.g., Florida) recognize the safety and use-of-force training given to military personnel as acceptable. Such states will allow a military ID for active persons or DD214 for legally discharged persons in lieu of formal civilian training certification. Active and retired law enforcement officers are also generally exempt from qualification requirements, due to a federal statute permitting retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in the United States.

"Opt-out" carry prohibition laws have been hotly contested. Opponents claim these statutes are not helpful in reducing criminal carry of firearms, as only lawfully-carrying individuals will disarm when on the property. It is also in fact harmful to otherwise lawfully-carrying individuals, as concealed-carry licensees who do not notice the sign are immediately in violation of a law, with a possible consequence of the revocation of their ability to carry concealed or to others who may decide to leave the firearm locked in their vehicle, increasing the chance that it will be stolen.

Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.

[denuseri]

Additonally:

The "turn the other cheek'/ satyagahra method of dealing with those who would harm us is unfortunatly only as effective as the compassion of the aggressor permits.

Which is probabely why actual statistics from the DOJ involving the resistance or a lack there of during the commission of a violent crime reflect that, one who resists with a gun is far more likely to survive an encounter unscathed compared to other forms of resistance by a ratio of 4 to 1 (martial arts, other types of weapons etc) or no-resistance at all by a ration of 2 to 1.

In other words, resistance with a gun has the best chance of survival over any other means.

[Thorne]

Good job, denuseri! A lot of good information.

resistance with a gun has the best chance of survival over any other means.

This is something I've been saying for a long time. Nice to know that there are statistics to back me up. I'll have to check up on them.

Opponents also point to recent school, mall, church and other public shootings in areas where the owner or State has prohibited concealed carry as evidence that criminals are in fact drawn to posted places, as the population of such a place is likely to be less armed than a place in which concealed carry is allowed.

This reinforces my comments about criminals being less active when they know there is a risk of armed resistance.

Thanks for the info!

[denuseri]

Thank's Thorne!

Just some tidbits I picked up after surviving a violent crime myself and deciding to get and maintain my own concealed carry lisence.

[MMI]

So what you're saying is that the only possible reason to kill someone is because you are absolutely positive they are going to kill you? That's absurd! Until they actually fire the weapon there's no possible way to know your attacker's intentions. Is that man coming at you with a knife to kill you? Or just to cut your face up? Or maybe just to frighten you? How can you know until the knife is buried in your chest?

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)

[MMI]

Most all of the following I got from Wikki:

Its just FYI.

In the United States, carrying a concealed weapon (CCW, also known as concealed carry) is the legal authorization for private citizens to carry a handgun or other weapons in public in a concealed manner, either on the person or in close proximity to the person.

...

Therefore, while state laws vary, generally use of deadly force is recommended as a last resort, when life or limb is endangered, when escape or retreat are foreclosed, and warnings are given but ignored. However, increased passage of "Castle Doctrine" laws allow persons who own firearms and/or carry them concealed to also use them to protect property, and/or to use them without first attempting to retreat.

...

Thank-you, den. I accept the facts you have set out above. My only comment is in response to the section I have quoted, but it applies to the whole post.

In a sentence, the CCW laws are to me an incitement to violence as a first resort, not a last resort, and if that is the attitude of the authorities, then all of the "liability issues" are probably focused on avoiding penalties if you kill by mistake.

What does "training" include? Target practice? What about how to avoid confrontation?

[MMI]

Good job, denuseri! A lot of good information.


This is something I've been saying for a long time. Nice to know that there are statistics to back me up. I'll have to check up on them.


This reinforces my comments about criminals being less active when they know there is a risk of armed resistance.

Thanks for the info!

It seems obvious that people who fear another person is armed will be less inclined to attack. The stats will prove nothing but the obvious. However, you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

Only recently, I discovered that the UK is more violent than USA or South Africa. Yet there is no real demand here for the right to carry guns or other weapons in public, and if there were a referendum, I bet a pound to a penny that the vote would be against. In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

[Thorne]

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply.

Reasonable certainty is certainly ... reasonable. I have no argument with that. But who gets to define "reasonable"? The intended victim (turned killer) or the criminal's family?

Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe?

A holstered weapon, while it might make you uncomfortable, would not in and of itself be threatening. It will make you more aware of the person, though, which isn't a bad thing either. The man with the knife I described was in fact threatening. My scenario was intended to imply that he was displaying the knife in a threatening, aggressive manner, such as pointed at you, or slashing in your direction. I would consider that to be threatening, with reasonable certainty.

Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

Fortunately, the look in someone's eye cannot be considered grounds for self defense. Unless he actually draws his weapon, or strikes you even without the weapon, his actions cannot be considered threatening. Unnerving perhaps, but not threatening.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I don't intend to imply any such desire myself. I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation. But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.

But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

I agree with you. Even in the act of self defense we have to be held responsible for our actions. That's why I think mandatory training, real training not just lip service, should be a requirement. And why I think any shooting, whether self defense or not, should be fully investigated.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)

And again, I disagree. While any weapon can be lethal, even a baseball bat, carrying that weapon does not necessary show a desire or willingness to kill. It only shows a desire for self defense. If threatening my attacker with the weapon suffices in driving him off, I'd be quite happy not to have fired a shot. Bullets cost money, you know!

[Thorne]

you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers, where the survivor was right and the dead man was in the wrong, don't you.

No, of course not. As I have said, ALL such incidents must be investigated as crimes. But imprisoning the surviving victim for defending himself, even lethally, is not the answer, either.

In fact, it is against the law to carry any offensive weapon in public.

What is considered an "offensive" weapon? A knife? What about a sword? Or a cricket bat?

OK, we might get hit with a bat, or knifed, but we perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

And yet, by your own admission the crime rate in the UK is higher than here in the US. And some things I've read suggest that the incidence of gun crimes in the UK have been rising steadily since the gun ban went into effect. Can you confirm or deny this?

[MMI]

I cannot give conclusive facts, and have no time to do the research. Perhaps someone else is better able to provide unbiased data for us. In yellow would be nice.

I did find this, from the Gun Control Network (I mistyped that as "Gin Control ... a whole other debate!) - which obviously has an agenda to pursue:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons
Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Other (inc Accident)

USA (2001) 3.98 5.92 0.36
Italy (1997) 0.81 1.1 0.07
Switzerland (1998) 0.50 5.8 0.10
Canada (2002) 0.4 2.0 0.04
Finland (2003) 0.35 4.45 0.10
Australia (2001) 0.24 1.34 0.10
France (2001) 0.21 3.4 0.49
England/Wales (2002) 0.15 0.2 0.03
Scotland (2002) 0.06 0.2 0.02
Japan (2002) 0.02 0.04 0

If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.

I could not help noticing the banner over its home page, which quoted Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa when he was giving evidence to the Cullen Inquiry in 1996: "Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.
Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).
Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society
Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police
Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.
Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival

[MMI]

The COURTS decide, obviously. I'm sure US judges have examined this question quite thoroughly, and I expect they have reached conclusions similar to British judges. I believe it involves deciding whether an ordinary person of normal fortitude would aprehend death in similar circumstances. Of course, we rely upon the sitting judge to make that decision. Fortunatley, they are trained to do so.

I agree your knife man is more threatening than my gun carrier, who would probably not make me fear for my life. But there is a line to be drawn, and I believe it must be drawn earlier than you appear to.

I would be quite content to go through life without having to deal with such a situation.

How many Americans do go through life that way? I know that the vast majority of Brits do, in an apparrently much more violent country.

But just because an attacker isn't armed doesn't mean he can't, or won't, kill you. Self defense means protecting yourself, as much as is necessary. Naturally, if someone attacks you and you shoot him in the arm and he then runs away, continuing to fire on him until he's dead would be criminal. But shooting him until he stops attacking is justified.

That is why the law follows the doctrine of proportionate force. And it is why I deplore and despise the American authorites' encouragement (for that's what it is) to use lethal force as a first resort and to protect property (see den's post above).

Carrying a weapon if you know the chances of being attacked are high (greater than even, I suggest) could be argued for - but so could avoiding the situation completely. But carrying a lethal weapon against the remote chance (less than even) is much harder to justify, especially when avoiding the situation is still an option. That's not truly self-defence, it's suppressed agression. It's saying, "If you do anything to upset me, I'm going to kill you"

(If the weapon is concealed, the carrier's attitude is the same, but no warning is given.)

[MMI]

In Britain anything that is capable of being used as a weapon, will be treated as a weapon, if the circumstances indicate that it will be used as such. Thus, a milkman carrying a bottle, or a mother carrying an umbrella is unlikely to be charged, but aggressive and posturing youths outside a pub on a Friday night carrying the same items are highly likely to be arrested.

[Thorne]

If we can't prevent gun crime, then perhaps gun control will reduce suicides and accidental deaths.

Except you aren't advocating gun controls. You're looking for gun bans! A different subject altogether.

"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".

The key word in that quote is should. I wonder if that's true? From what you've been saying about the crime rates in England rising I tend to think that it's not.

I also came across the following random snippets:
Gun crime in London has doubled recently.

Despite a total ban on civilian gun ownership. Gee, why am I not surprised?

Most shootings involve young people and are for petty reasons (and are termed "respect" shootings).

This isn't surprising either, given the modern "macho" culture perpetuated on the TV and movies.

Most gun crime takes place in poorer districts and is committed by less well-off people who have become disconnected from society

Pretty common wherever you go. Those who don't have much tend to want more. And some will take it however they can.

Most gun victims have convictions or are known to the police

This one surprised me at first, but after thinking about it, here in the US I think most gun crimes are gang and/or drug related, so it does make some sense.

Where a violent crime takes place and one or other of the people involved - victim or attacker - has a gun, death is likely to result.

Not surprising. Guns are intended to kill, not to wound.

Someone shot in the heart has a 20% chance of survival: someone knifed in the heart has a 70% chance of survival

If you give the knife a good twist before yanking it out, it should cut down those odds considerably.

[DuncanONeil]

I only have one problem with your post.

"In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation."

Government is still imposed by force. The democratic process serves to choose the enforcers!

I got that idea from earlier posts in the thread and continued to think that way when responding to you. I understand now that you were suggesting this kind of punishment be inflected deliberately and cold-bloodedly by people who are completely disconnected from the original crime. In front of cameras.

I deny there is any kind of justice in the system of punishment you propose.




I can see why you say that, but I actually believe that the offender should receive the degree of punishment prescribed by the law. The law does not need to submit the offender to the same treatment he gave his victim, and it does not have to be led by his actions. Modern society can protect itself without resorting to such brutal, primitive conduct, and it can exact retribution without taking an eye, or a tooth, or a hand or a foot, or even a life. We left that behind in the Dark Ages, and it is well that we did. In those days, life was much harder than it is now, and government was imposed by force rather than by democratic participation.




That is what I am arguing. I do not believe a sober-minded dispassionate person would stipulate that the crime of murder be subject to the death penalty when he considers the alternatives available. Only if influenced by emotion would he say that hanging was appropriate because there is not a single benefit to be gained from executing the murderer other than to satiate disturbed passions.



I agree. Crimes, once committed cannot be cancelled out or nullified. Yet an "eye for an eye" has every appearance of saying one bad deed can be cancelled out by another, and a "life for a life" carries exactly the same implication.



In Iceland, during Norse times, there was no-one to enforce the laws made by the Alþingi, and those who sought redress for some offence against them were obliged to obtain it themselves, by force if necessary. Icelandic society became riven by feuding families, and was unable to develop as a result. This, I suggest is actual evidence of what happens when justice, equated with revenge, is left to individuals to enforce. It ceases to be even-handed, measured or certain and becomes haphazzard, excessive and random.



I was working on the premise that a punishment based on revenge could only be imposed by those who had been directly affected by the crime - the vicitm's family. Where the death sentence is to be imposed, I believe it is an act of revenge rather than a dispassionate judicial punishment.

It is common these days for victims to be allowed to address courts nowadays in an attempt to secure a harsher penalty for the accused, which can only be pandering to the revenge motive.

Why not allow the killer's family to submit special pleas on how badly they will be affected if he is hanged?

[DuncanONeil]

I have seen that three case senario here before. As to the data I was looking for I found some and am in the process of putting it in a form that willo be readable here. Some of the numbers may be surprising.
Still looking for convictions, think I have someplace to pick them out.

While you're at it you could try and find data on random stops. Police tend to be more suspicious of black people, so there are a far higher rate of random stops, and a far higher rate of searches at the border etc.

I have several acquaintances who smoke marijuana, 4 of whom took their personal amounts across the border, the three white guys weren't searched, the one minority was. Admittedly this is only an anecdotal case, but if stuff like this plays out in the larger data, then its quite likely blacks are not necessarily committing more crimes but rather are being treated with suspicion and hence are caught more frequently.

So looking it how arrests compare to convictions wouldn't show you the larger picture of what level of crimes are being committed. It would only show you what level of crimes are being caught. Assuming a random sampling is certainly problematic as there is strong evidence of bias. Take for instance racial profiling:

The idea behind it was that blacks committed a higher percentage of crimes, so if a police officer has two suspicious people (one white, one black) fleeing the scene of a crime and can only chase one of them they go after the black guy. There are several possibilities for what actually happened here:

Case (i): The black guy did it. They likely catch him and prosecute.

Case (ii): The white guy did it. He escapes the initial scene, and chances are somewhat poor that they track him down to catch him and prosecute.

Case (iii): They were accomplices. The black guy likely gets caught and is prosecuted. He may or may not turn over his accomplices.

So if you have a police force that responds to a chase scene in this way, you would have bias in your data. The white guy is far more likely to not be caught for this crime than the black guy.

[DuncanONeil]

I bet I know what that link says without going there!
"Gun control means using two hands!"

I don't know where I got this (it might even have been somewhere here) but it seems appropriate.

[COLOR="rgb(0, 0, 0)"][/COLOR]

[DuncanONeil]

What else has Canada to offer? Um ... oil sands?

Apparently they US hasn't learned anything from all the other countries who haven't learned anything about Afghanistan, either.


I wasn't trying to make a point, per se, just teasing. So okay, the US had to leave Canada. So what? Other than hockey and polar bears what have they got to offer? (Geez! I can already feel the indignation blasting down like an Arctic freeze! Give it a rest, guys! I'm kidding! I like hockey! Polar bears, too. And there are plenty of Canadian actors who pretend to be Americans so they can make a lot of our money! So take it easy on me, eh?)

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!

Everyone should have a right to defend themselves from an attacker!

[DuncanONeil]

The law on the use of lethal force is quite clear. "In the United States, a civilian may legally use deadly force when it is considered justifiable homicide, that is to say when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger."

To require a person to prove that had they not taken action would have been killed it tantamount to being asked to prove a negative.

True. But the right to use lethal force can only be granted in very limited circumstances. It must be limited to circumstances where the killer can show s/he was facing certain death him/herself. Otherwise, if s/he would rather kill than take the chance, then s/he deserves everything the judiciary can throw at him/her.

[DuncanONeil]

Me!!! Thanks a lot! I upset you that much? Holstered, no you got no right. But with a draw of that weapon you might have a case.

It is not the act of killing that makes murder it is intent!

No, not absolutely positive and if I used those words (I don't think I did) then I withdraw them. Reasonably certain is, I believe, the criterion most legal systems apply. Consider post 121 above. Suppose man walks towards me in a manner I consider threatening, openly wearing a gun in a holster. How is that different from the man with the knife you describe? Am I entitled to kill DuncanO'Neill in case he wants to shoot me, or should I wait until I am sure he intends to? He might simply be exercising his right to bear arms, and have an unfortunate look in his eye.

I am not trying to take away the right of self defence, I am trying to place limits around it so that the intended victim can protect him/herself without committing a worse act than the attacker. I perceive that to be a very real danger, and I read a desire for just that in your posts and those of others.

I agree that a dead rapist is never going to be a repeat offender:that's a trite truism. But a dead passer-by is never going to be able to do anything ever again, is s/he? Ever! That's why anyone who contemplates using "ultimate force" under any circumstances must accept the consequences of his/her actions, and if that force is misapplied, that person must pay a very heavy penalty indeed ... the same penalty as any other murderer would face.

(I believe murder would be the appropriate charge, rather than a lesser one of (say) manslaughter, because anyone who carries a weapon knows it is a lethal instrument, designed to kill and with no other purpose. They must realise that if it is used, death is likely to result: killing is clearly within that person's contemplation before the event.)