Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
I hear this line of questioning and argument all the time. Self preservation is in the fabric of our being. If it came down to you or my family and I going six feet under you best say your prayers son. State sanctioned killing and killing in the process of defending ones self are mutually exclusive. I mean what's the rational behind state sanctioned killing besides saving the state inmate related expenses (which by the way can be recouped and then some if inmates were forced to work)?
|
I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive. I think JoeRedskin explained quite eloquently how the two are related.
Even though I support the death penalty, I would draw a distinction between self defense carried out under exigent circumstances and defense of the State by carrying out the death penalty.
Self defense taken against a present threat posing imminent danger to myself or others would be something like a guy busting down my door and waving a gun at my family or, in my line of work, someone pulling a gun on me at a traffic stop. I've never heard someone argue against killing in that situation, unless they are a true pacifist.
I think you could argue that execution is done in defense of the country, but it's not done to eliminate an imminent threat. Once the person is behind bars the immediate danger is eliminated. Defense of the country in cases like our response to Pearl Harbor is certainly self defense, and certainly done to face an imminent threat.