Death Penatly and Mental Illness (Page 2)

So is the right to liberty but it is acceptable for this right to be forfeit is is not?

The Founders listed these natural rights in a very specific hierarchical order.

Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness (by which the meant the pursuit of property)

It needs to be in a hierarchy because the rights further down the list can't be enjoyed
without the rights above them being secured.

So you can't engage in the pursuit or happiness, property, without having liberty.
You can't enjoy liberty without having life.

Therefore, the right to life stands at the top of these natural rights that are inalienable.
Without life it's not possible to engage in any of the other natural rights.

So can a rightful authority take away someone's property (happiness)?
Sure. If a person has caused harm and that harm has resulted in another person to lose their property 
then it is just to redress the wrong by forcing the perpetrator to make economic restitution.

Can a rightful authority take away someone's liberty?
Sure.  If a person has caused harm to another person and caused that person to lose their property
or liberty or life, then it is just to take away their liberty.
For how long?  That depends on a number of factors.  One important factor is that innocent people
need their life, liberty, and property protected from further harm from the perpetrator. 

Can rightful authority take away of person's right to life?
No, not as long as that person does not reasonably pose a threat toward the public.

I suppose if killing a murderer would bring back the murdered,
then there would be justification for capital punishment. 
Short of that though, I don't see it. 

No, because at that point all we're dealing with is one life.

The victim has died.
The only life at stake is the perpetrator's.

Again, if the victim could come back to life then there would be justification for killing the perpetrator.

So I think there's a line here, and that line involves the notion of time.

We have the right to self defense.
If someone is being attacked and believes that they might be killed
they have the right to use lethal force to stop the perpetrator.
They also have the right to lethal force to protect those that are under their care.

Both the victim and the perpetrator have the right to life.
However, the victim has the right to self defense.
Therefore, they have the right to use lethal force if necessary.

Once the act is committed however, the situation changes.
If the victim is killed, then there is only one life involved going forward.
Execution will not bring the victim back.

The foundational principle that makes murder wrong in the first place,
namely that human persons have the right to life, needs to be upheld.
That's true even if we're upholding it for someone we find reprehensible. 

No, because at that point all we're dealing with is one life.

The victim has died.
The only life at stake is the perpetrator's.

Again, if the victim could come back to life then there would be justification for killing the perpetrator.

So I think there's a line here, and that line involves the notion of time.

We have the right to self defense.
If someone is being attacked and believes that they might be killed
they have the right to use lethal force to stop the perpetrator.
They also have the right to lethal force to protect those that are under their care.

Both the victim and the perpetrator have the right to life.
However, the victim has the right to self defense.
Therefore, they have the right to use lethal force if necessary.

Once the act is committed however, the situation changes.
If the victim is killed, then there is only one life involved going forward.
Execution will not bring the victim back.

The foundational principle that makes murder wrong in the first place,
namely that human persons have the right to life, needs to be upheld.
That's true even if we're upholding it for someone we find reprehensible. 

So can a rightful authority take away someone's property (happiness)?
Sure. If a person has caused harm and that harm has resulted in another person to lose their property 
then it is just to redress the wrong by forcing the perpetrator to make economic restitution.

Can a rightful authority take away someone's liberty?
Sure.  If a person has caused harm to another person and caused that person to lose their property
or liberty or life, then it is just to take away their liberty.
For how long?  That depends on a number of factors.  One important factor is that innocent people
need their life, liberty, and property protected from further harm from the perpetrator. 

Can rightful authority take away a person's right to life?
No, not as long as that person does not reasonably pose a threat toward the public.

So society should be forced to support said murder for the rest of his/her natural life because said murder had no such compunction about depriving another of their right to life?

 Yes, it's the cost of a civilized society.

Do I think there are cases where the death penalty is justified?  Yes.  But on the other hand I don't think it works in our legal system.

1. can we incarcerate someone for life w/o them getting out (protect society)?  yes. We cannot guarantee this.  There is no such thing as an escape proof prison.  We have some that are pretty darned close but the cost is astronomical.
2. are there wrongful convictions or people who are exonerated later on?  yes.
3. does it provide a deterrent?  not in my opinion.

on the topic of cost:

That's the second time someone has used this phase.  It's a nice soundbite but nothing more.

That's the second time someone has used this phase.  It's a nice soundbite but nothing more.

That's the second time someone has used this phase.  It's a nice soundbite but nothing more.

It's not a nice sound bite...in fact, it's a hard thing.  But if the taking of a human life is wrong, then it's wrong.  If we did not have the means to keep the offender away from society for the rest of his life I may have a different view, as society must be protected from predetors.  But the fact is, we DO have the means in this country, and so we should use those before we take a human life.

I didn't always feel this way.  Witnessing an execution changed my mind.

We always seem to want to measure our civility by our treatment of the perpetrators of crimes never on our treatment of the victims of crimes.  This includes all victims of a crime even the damage to the fabric of society.

How does the death penalty for the perpetrator treat the victim of a crime, individual or societal?

We always seem to want to measure our civility by our treatment of the perpetrators of crimes never on our treatment of the victims of crimes.  This includes all victims of a crime even the damage to the fabric of society.

I also find it interesting that the more "civilized" the more crime we seem to have and the more reprehensibly we treat each other.  We have divorced consequence from action.

I don't see any more crime that I saw 25 years ago when I started....except on the news...I see alot more of it there.

Hypothetically:  If you kill my husband is it really civilized to expect me to pay for your 3 hots and a cot for the rest of your life?  Does that not place a huge psychological burden on me?

I think it is civilized, by definition.  By comparison, allowing you to torture the perpetrator would be uncivilized.  This is why the system determines punishments for crimes and not the victims. 

Hypothetically:  If you kill my husband is it really civilized to expect me to pay for your 3 hots and a cot for the rest of your life?  Does that not place a huge psychological burden on me?

No, because at that point all we're dealing with is one life.

The victim has died.
The only life at stake is the perpetrator's.

Again, if the victim could come back to life then there would be justification for killing the perpetrator.

So I think there's a line here, and that line involves the notion of time.

We have the right to self defense.
If someone is being attacked and believes that they might be killed
they have the right to use lethal force to stop the perpetrator.
They also have the right to lethal force to protect those that are under their care.

Both the victim and the perpetrator have the right to life.
However, the victim has the right to self defense.
Therefore, they have the right to use lethal force if necessary.

Once the act is committed however, the situation changes.
If the victim is killed, then there is only one life involved going forward.
Execution will not bring the victim back.

The foundational principle that makes murder wrong in the first place,
namely that human persons have the right to life, needs to be upheld.
That's true even if we're upholding it for someone we find reprehensible.