The Death Penalty or Life Meaning Life

[DuncanONeil]

Here is an example of the requirements to secure a CCW permit, selected at random.
http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5710000101.htm

If you wish to check out others then you need to use this site.
http://www.carryconcealed.net/

Just in the spirit of fair play; State Department Locations:

Attorney General
123 West Washington Ave.
PO Box 7857
Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857
Phone: 608-266-1221 Fax: 608-267-2779
Permit Costs & Info:
N/A
Click Here for CCW Permit Form
Open Carry Information:
Wisconsin is an open carry state. They have complete state preemption for firearms laws. However, you may not openly carry a firearm in a vehicle. http://opencarry.org/ Facts for my state.

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?

[DuncanONeil]

You know the first time I went to Japan and interacted with the people there. like anywhere else they asked where I came from. When I told them they would immediately put there hands up one behind the other with the lead hand index finger point out away from. they then swung this configuration back and forth accompanied by the vocalization rat-ta-tat-tat-tat. Giving the implication that they understood that drive-by machine-gunnings continued to occur in Chicago in spite of the fact that it was 1969.

You present the same kind of misunderstanding with comments like;

• you surely want to move away from the Gun Law of the old frontiers,
• perceive the danger is far less here than American scaremongers such as the NRA whine about over there.

Even the old frontiers were not as wild as is believed. And the NRA is not scaremongering. NRA Mission: To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms.
Founded: In 1871, by a group of Union veterans of the American Civil War. The first NRA president was Ambrose Burnside; the eighth, Ulysses S. Grant. I was actually surprised to see that the organization is that old!

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.

[DuncanONeil]

I just looked at the numbers for 2008. In that year there were 14,180 murders and non-negligent homicides. Of these 67% or 9,500 were a result of firearms. There is even a problem with that term as that includes anything that throws a bullet, rifle, shotgun, whatever. This produces a rate of 3.08 per 100,000 (9,500/308,000,000 = X/100,000). That is down 30% from your 2001 figure.
However if I use my source to check your numbers the results are different. 2001 is 8664/307000000 = X/100000 or 2.82 per 100,000 meaning an increase of 9%.

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

[DuncanONeil]

Kind of hard for me to evaluate effectively but I can agree to an increase in crime for what I believe is the London Metro area. This site does show a substantial increase in personal crime.
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html

Does not get very much more specific than that except that sexual crimes is a separate entry.

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

[DuncanONeil]

Again you always assume the worst. This assumption appears to be based solely upon the presence of a firearm. By your analysis I should have been engaged in several shootings. I am continually upset while at home by the actions of others and there are handguns and rifles in my house.

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.


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.



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.)

[DuncanONeil]

Answer Part One
Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t412008.pdf

Table 4.1.2008

Estimated number of arrests a

By offense charged, United States, 2008

Offense charged
Total b 14,005,615

• Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 12,955
• Forcible rape 22,584
• Robbery 129,403
• Aggravated assault 429,969
• Burglary 308,479
• Larceny-theft 1,266,706
• Motor vehicle theft 98,035
• Arson 14,125
• Violent crime c 594,911

aData are based on all reporting agencies and estimates for unreported areas.
bBecause of rounding, figures may not add to total. Total does not include suspicion.
cViolent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault.
dProperty crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United
States, 2008, Table 29 [Online]. Available: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/

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]

Answer Part Two
Total arrests
American
Indian or Asian or
Alaskan Pacific
Total White Black Native Islander

TTL 10662206 7382063 3015905 142908 121330


Murder 9859 4721 4935 99 104
Rape 16847 10990 5428 198 231
Robbery 100525 41962 56948 681 934
Assault 328736 208081 112325 4453 3877
Burglary 235407 157252 73960 2077 2118
theft 979145 666360 286844 12684 13257
GTA 74881 44674 28510 795 902
Arson 10734 8139 2331 132 132

Viole \b\ 455967 265754 179636 5431 5146
Prpty \c\ 1300167 876425 391645 15688 16409

Percentages to follow

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]

Answer Part Three
American
Indian or Asian or
Alaskan Pacific
Total White Black Native Islander

100.00% 69.20% 28.30% 1.30% 1.10%


Murder 100 47.9 50.1 1 1.1
Forcible rape 100 65.2 32.2 1.2 1.4
Robbery 100 41.7 56.7 0.7 0.9
Assault 100 63.3 34.2 1.4 1.2
Burglary 100 66.8 31.4 0.9 0.9
Larceny-theft 100 68.1 29.3 1.3 1.4
GTA 100 59.7 38.1 1.1 1.2
Arson 100 75.8 21.7 1.2 1.2

Violent crime\b\ 100 58.3 39.4 1.2 1.1
Property crime\c\ 100 67.4 30.1 1.2 1.3

\a\Because of rounding, percents may not add to total.
\b\Violent crimes are offenses of murder and nonnegligent manslaugh-
ter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.
\c\Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle
theft, and arson.

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 suspect that data on so-called random stops would be next to impossible to produce short of actually getting the specific police logs or radio logs.

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]

This may also be of some interest.
http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t5572004.pdf

I suspect that data on so-called random stops would be next to impossible to produce short of actually getting the specific police logs or radio logs.

[IAN 2411]

MPs May Be Forced To Vote On Death Penalty

MPs could be forced into a landmark vote on the restoration of the death penalty because of a new e-petitions scheme.

Commons leader Sir George Young has already said they should not ignore voters and shy away from debating the issue.

Sir George warned it would damage democracy to ignore strong opinions among members of the public "or pretend that their views do not exist".

He spoke out ahead of the publication of the first submissions to the new e-petitions scheme, which could see the most popular appeals discussed in Parliament.

Among the most prominent is one calling for legislation allowing child killers and those who murder on-duty police officers to face execution.

It has been presented by Paul Staines, who writes the libertarian Guido Fawkes blog, and has already been backed by several MPs.

If it is signed by the required 100,000 supporters or more, then the cross-party Backbench Business Committee will decide whether it will be debated.

Sir George played down fears about airing the subject - which was effectively abolished as a sentence for murder in the UK in 1965.

"The site has been widely welcomed as a realistic way to revitalise public engagement in Parliament," he wrote in the Daily Mail.

"But there have been some who have been concerned by some of the subjects which could end up being debated - for example, the restoration of capital punishment.

"The last time this was debated - during the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1998 - restoration was rejected by 158 votes.

"But, if lots of people want Parliament to do something which it rejects, then it is up to MPs to explain the reasons to their constituents. What else is Parliament for?

"People have strong opinions, and it does not serve democracy well if we ignore them or pretend that their views do not exist."

Conservative MP Priti Patel said such a debate was long overdue and that she favoured restoring capital punishment "for the most serious and significant crimes" - a position echoed by party colleague Andrew Turner.

Another Tory, Philip Davies, told the newspaper he would like to see all murders punishable by death.

.................................................. ....

I can only say that my voice must have been heard.


Be well IAN 2411

[js207]

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.
...
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).

Fortunately, it isn't that simple. To quote one relevant American law:

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another to pervent the other who is fleeing after committing burglary, robbery, or theft during the nighttime, from escaping with the property and he reasonable believes that the property cannot be recovered by any other means; or, the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the property would expose him or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury."

I for one wholeheartedly concur. I would far rather have a dead burglar than a burgled home. Never mind limiting the use of deadly force, I very much support the idea of criminals dying in the commission of their crime whenever possible. Criminals' rights should essentially begin once in custody and all resistance to arrest has ceased; until that point, any injury they may sustain is entirely their own fault.

[MMI]

Then, by that logic, a person must be expected to lay down his life before parting with a penny's worth of property, because what you are saying is that property, no matter what it is worth, has greater value than life. That is precisely what I despise about laws and philosophies such as you have quoted.

I cannot imagine how grand a home must be to weigh heavier than the life of a person, however mean and humble he be.

But if I'm wrong, hell - let's go and shoot some 11 year-old shop-lifters pinching sweeties. A pound of humbugs is more valuable than a couple of naughty rascals.

No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.

[js207]

Then, by that logic, a person must be expected to lay down his life before parting with a penny's worth of property, because what you are saying is that property, no matter what it is worth, has greater value than life. That is precisely what I despise about laws and philosophies such as you have quoted.

No, I'm not. I distinguish between the value of innocent life and that of a criminal engaged in the commission of a crime. I don't expect anyone to sacrifice their own life defending property - whether fighting crime or fires - but I'm more than happy to see criminals' actions backfire on them badly.

No-one is a criminal until convicted, and until then, everyone has the same rights. If a person injures himself in the commission of a crime, that is one thing, but if he is unlawfully injured, that is entirely another.

No, by definition you are a criminal when you are committing a crime, whether you are convicted of it or not - and the core of our disagreement lies in the line above: you apparently distinguish between a criminal injuring himself and another person causing that injury, while I distinguish between that criminal and innocent bystanders or victims. If you steal a car, crash it and die, does it matter whether you crashed it because you were high or drunk, the car was faulty or it had been booby-trapped as a Darwinian security measure?

[MMI]

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! The robbery would have backfired if the thief left empty-handed, or got caught up in a gun-fight, or if he shot himself by accident, but for a property-owner to shoot a man on the run, and who is no threat, is nothing less than a deliberate killing carried out in cold blood and without fear for one's own life. That law licences murder ... provided it is done at night time. Why night time? Perhaps the lawmaker realised the shamefulness of the wicked act it was legitimising. Or perhaps it is designed only to protect cowards.

Give me Sharia Law. At least an Imman has to decide the man's guilt according to some sort of process.

If you are a criminal who has not been convicted, you will not be punished, and therefore unconvicted criminals are irrelevant to this discussion. If you are convicted by due process of law, you deserve whatever the law decrees. If you have not been convicted, no-one, high or low, has the right to exact retribution. That right disappeared in the Dark Ages. Or was it the Stone Age?

To my mind, whoever framed that law was advocating Gun Law and anarchy. Maybe he was about to start a vendetta against the poor or the immigrants or something. Or maybe he was a psychopath who wanted to stay on the right side of the law.

I still cannot balance the equation Property = Life, so, in answer to your final question, yes it does matter. 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. If I die because the car is booby-trapped, then the owner will have murdered me. He will have contemplated a situation where an unauthorised person sits in the car and he will then have taken steps to kill that person: intention and act.

Only the obnoxious, retrograde law you have praised so highly can protect him.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.