Should killing in self-defense be removed too?

[optimomojo]

000

[woot]

This is mostly for the anti-death penalty folks:

Besides repealing the death penalty, would you also remove the legally justified killing of another human being in self-defense?

Consider the following scenario:
[youtube]cV3mGvCFFJE[/youtube]

If you are anti-death penalty, why support a legally justified killing of another human being in self-defense? Isn't it completely rash to consider taking the life of another human being in such a short time, let alone to actually do it?

Cops kill folks, who are threatening others with deadly force, every day? Isn't that too much authority to put in the hands of one person?

Are you really suggesting that killing someone who is threatening to kill you is the same thing as killing someone who is locked up and presents no danger to anyone?

[woot]

Nope. Just asking opinions of where the line is drawn and why?

Are you suggesting it is ok to kill someone based on a quick decision without due time of deliberation preferrably under the auspices of a judge and jury of peers?

No. I'll just say that this is a complicated issue and that your comparison is not instructive.

[woot]

"Dodging the bullet", so to speak?

In what circumstance would killing in self-defense be justified or not justified?

I wouldn't mind a conversation on this topic, but it's not one I have particularly strong feelings about. I'll go ahead and wait for a thread with a less retarded premise.

[il Padrino Ute]

If we can't protect ourselves, what are we supposed to do?

I'm thinking that Son of ____ is like me, in that the 2nd Amendment rocks.

[old_gregg]

concealed carry representin in that video. i don't think anyone can argue this was unjustified. i wish it happened more.

[Pheidippides]

If we can't protect ourselves, what are we supposed to do?

I'm thinking that Son of ____ is like me, in that the 2nd Amendment rocks.

I am a 2nd Amendment guy, gun owner, all of that.

I am also anti death penalty.

The question that SoP asks is quite silly, and he's really already answered it in this thread.

I have a very hard time seeing the justification for killing a criminal, no matter the crime, if you don't believe in the deterrence effect (and, to be clear, I think the returns on deterrence are mixed).

I have a very easy time seeing the justification for killing a person that causes a genuine and immediate threat, such as self-defense or policemen in the line of duty.

Far from being irreconcilable, it is precisely because I understand the justification for the latter that I have a hard time understanding the former.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I am a 2nd Amendment guy, gun owner, all of that.

I am also anti death penalty.

The question that SoP asks is quite silly, and he's really already answered it in this thread.

I have a very hard time seeing the justification for killing a criminal, no matter the crime, if you don't believe in the deterrence effect (and, to be clear, I think the returns on deterrence are mixed).

I have a very easy time seeing the justification for killing a person that causes a genuine and immediate threat, such as self-defense or policemen in the line of duty.

Far from being irreconcilable, it is precisely because I understand the justification for the latter that I have a hard time understanding the former.

I have a similar POV. I started my adult life in the Pro-death penalty camp. I have not fallen all the way off of that boat, but my viewpoint is far more complicated than it used to be.

[il Padrino Ute]

I am a 2nd Amendment guy, gun owner, all of that.

I am also anti death penalty.

The question that SoP asks is quite silly, and he's really already answered it in this thread.

I have a very hard time seeing the justification for killing a criminal, no matter the crime, if you don't believe in the deterrence effect (and, to be clear, I think the returns on deterrence are mixed).

I have a very easy time seeing the justification for killing a person that causes a genuine and immediate threat, such as self-defense or policemen in the line of duty.

Far from being irreconcilable, it is precisely because I understand the justification for the latter that I have a hard time understanding the former.

I'm for the death penalty if there is no doubt that the accused is guilty of committing murder. With today's science, it seems as if it would be practically impossible to sentence an innocent person to be executed.

I have no problem with justifiable homicides. Better a bad guy die than a good guy.

[Pheidippides]

I have a similar POV. I started my adult life in the Pro-death penalty camp. I have not fallen all the way off of that boat, but my viewpoint is far more complicated than it used to be.

I started there too, but I've changed significantly in the last five to ten years. To me, the argument of whether or not innocents have been executed is almost entirely a secondary issue. It has everything to do with the death penalty as an ex post action and punishment - again, if you are skeptical about the deterrence effect.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I started there too, but I've changed significantly in the last five to ten years. To me, the argument of whether or not innocents have been executed is almost entirely a secondary issue. It has everything to do with the death penalty as an ex post action and punishment - again, if you are skeptical about the deterrence effect.

The death penalty is about revenge and OT style justice(I am not saying right/wrong here, just stating the realities). the deterrent aspect has been disproven over and over.

[Pheidippides]

I'm for the death penalty if there is no doubt that the accused is guilty of committing murder. With today's science, it seems as if it would be practically impossible to sentence an innocent person to be executed.

I have no problem with justifiable homicides. Better a bad guy die than a good guy.

I don't see what the bold language accomplishes other than feeding a bloodlust. That is why I am against it. What does the death penalty do that life in prison without the opportunity for parole does not? My personal view is that (1) we are dealing, almost by definition, with irrational actors, and thus can't expect any consistent deterrent effect (hence the conflicting statistics) and (2) the killing of those who have killed does not bring closure, nor restoration, nor rehabilitation, to anybody or anything. The only thing I can see that it does is satisfy a desire for blood - that is to say, it is blood atonement, a doctrine in which I do not believe.

Or, more simply put, what JIC says above.

[il Padrino Ute]

I'll admit that I take a more Old Testament view of justice. IMO, an execution rids society of the responsibility to house and care for a convicted murderer. Tax dollars can be better spent.

[Pheidippides]

I'll admit that I take a more Old Testament view of justice. IMO, an execution rids society of the responsibility to house and care for a convicted murderer. Tax dollars can be better spent.

It is more expensive to implement the death penalty than life in prison. I do not believe that is even under any debate anymore. Normally I'd allow a few cracks at overlawyering and such (as I'm a general critic of overlawyering, my choice of profession notwithstanding) but I do not think that is the case when the life of a human is in the balance. If you want to tie to actual figures, the last I saw the imputed value of a human life for economic purposes was somewhere in the neighborhood of $3,000,000, which is a number well north of any tax figures we are talking about (IIRC).

[woot]

I'll admit that I take a more Old Testament view of justice. IMO, an execution rids society of the responsibility to house and care for a convicted murderer. Tax dollars can be better spent.

It seems like it was decided that it takes more money to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life. Anybody have a link for that?

Edit: and I'm a hack.