Saddam hangs

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I'm honestly not trying to crack open the proverbial "Can O' Worms" here, but what do you (and/or Matty) think about killing purely in self defense of yourself or your family?

I'm really just curious if when you say that no killing should be legalized, do you include killing out of self defense? In no way am I relating the Hussein execution to self-defense, this is just a separate but related question.

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)?

[JoeRedskin]

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)?

If killing in self-defense is justified for the individual then it is also justified for the state as our corporate being. The state is us and we are the state, and attacks upon our corporate being are, in fact, attacks upon us individually regardless of whether those attacks are from external threats or from internal ones.

State sanctioned killing has always been a form of civil self-defense. In a war this is fairly obvious - for example, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a pretty clear cut indication that we needed to kill in order to defend our corporate being. Similarly, killing those who attack the social fabric, through the murder of other members of the society, could be seen as a form of societal self-defense. Both by permanently removing those who attack that society and by deterring others from the same, the State asks to secure the safety of its members (yes, I know - because it is so abused and arbitrary in its application, the death penalty as currently practiced in the US has practically no deterrent effect. I suggest to you, however, that a swift and consistent execution of those found guilty of first degree murder would indeed have deterrent value. It would also be damn bloody).

Just so you know, I generally oppose the death penalty for a host of different reasons (both from an ethical and practical point of view) but believe that, as someone has said before, legitimate, reasonable arguments exist on both sides of the fence.

Unfortunately, this is one of those topics that generally causes reason to head out the door (the discussion so far has been amazingly level-headed, congrats to all for not letting it degenerate).

[mheisig]

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.