{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Liberty Hub
View Entire Topic
9/7/2016 11:29:47 PM
71
The Death Penalty
No fancy introduction on this one. I'm going to pose an argument.
I own a bike. If a man steals that bike, I can rightfully take it back immediately.
Can I take the bike back three weeks later, if I see it leaned up against the curb (assuming that I was unable to get it back as soon as it was stolen)? I certainly can. It's still my property.
Is there any amount of time that can pass that would make it morally impermissible for me to repossess my bike?
I would say no. It's my property, and time doesn't change that. The response to a crime does not have to become less severe over time.
Let's apply this idea to another situation.
A man attempts to kill a woman. Let's assume that deadly force becomes a reasonable response for the woman to take. In that instance, she can rightfully kill the man.
This is to say that the man has forfeit his right to life. He can rightfully die because of his own initiation of force.
Three weeks later, does the man still deserve to die? I would argue that he does. His right to life isn't magically restored over time. There's no logical basis for that.
No amount of time could pass where the man (assuming that he escapes all forms of retribution) suddenly doesn't deserve to die.
Discuss. Feel free to discuss the death penalty in general. It doesn't have to be confined to my example regarding moral permission.
-
Your analogy is deeply flawed. Im assuming in your hypothetical murder the woman doesn't defend herself and dies but since at the moment of the attempt she could have killed him justifiably so then that justifiable action should still be allowed as time should not be a necessary factor in determining a just punishment. Well first and foremost the death penalty has many more factors relating to it than a simple- is X punishment deserved, but we will skip all of those and pretend we are in a perfect judicial system with absolute guilt. Then your two variables you attempt to bridge your analogy across don't relate well for a variety of reasons. 1. A bike is simple property with monetary value that can be bought and sold, while human life is a much more complex construct. The bike has many substitutes or replacements and is able to be returned. 2. In your bike example you are only referencing your singular bike and your ability to return the world to the way things were prior to the crime. You are no worse or better off and the criminal is no worse or better off. There are 2 problems with this: a) You can take the bike back to correct the injustice but you can't bring back a human life. b) Your bike example would need to be structured in a way that your bike is stolen, the crook breaks your bike down for parts (essentially killing your bike). And you would pose the question would it be just to steal the crook's bike he legally owns since he took yours. Then you break his bike down for parts. The end result here is something where 'justice' has made the world a worse place on all accounts for everyone. You no longer have a bike nor does the crook and the only thing you get in return is knowing that the crook doesn't have a bike either. I would pose that this isn't ideal. You still may find that to fit your definition of 'justice' however in your example the analogy seems overly beneficial and optimistic. I might keep going with this later but I've got to sleep
