Lisa Jones
Gold Member
Offline
Australian Politics
Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: 
|
Frank wrote on Aug 4 th, 2023 at 5:04pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4 th, 2023 at 4:13pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4 th, 2023 at 4:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 4 th, 2023 at 3:40pm: Frank wrote on Aug 4 th, 2023 at 2:42pm: Self-defence doesn't make you worse than your attacker.
Strapping someone to a gurney and then injecting them with an overdose of pentobarbital, months or even years after the crime, is hardly self-defence - it's an act of cowardly barbarism. Fine - firing squad then. Or just put them in prison and outlaw them and give immunity to anyone who kills them. Equity. It's big with proggy leftards, equity. Spoken like a true coward, and barbarian. Like that other idiot from Perth, Bbwian of Very Little Bbrain, you are only able to assert something, creepy turd, but never actually back it up with reasons or a valid argument. Roger Scruton explains the justness of the death penalty eloquently: The issue seems quite simple to me. We have a right to punish crimes; the just punishment is the one that is deserved; some crimes are such that they deserve death. In such cases we ought to be merciful if we can. But not if, by being merciful, we show contempt for the victim. I am not sure that I agree with all Catholic teaching on this issue, but I have always found much good sense in the Islamic view, that the murderer cannot be forgiven, except by those who have been directly injured by his act – namely the family of his victim. They can sue for mercy on his behalf, and are allowed by Islamic law to do so. We bystanders cannot sue for mercy, since we have not been injured, and to presume to grant mercy nevertheless is to trample on the rights of the victim’s family. Of course, there are murders and murders. But how anybody could think that Hitler did not deserve death, or that it would have been wrong, had he been captured, to inflict it, beats me. I agree with Hegel here: that this kind of murderer does not merely deserve death, but has a right to it, and that the only way to respect his dignity – to treat him as the free agent that he is – is to inflict death upon him. When we punish a criminal in this way, we are not killing him: killing is what he did. We are rectifying an injustice by inflicting the just punishment, which happens to be death. When he trampled on the rights of his victim he knew that this would be the course that the law must take: so it is from his decision, not ours, that his punishment proceeds, and he is the one who has ultimate responsibility for his punishment. It is not we, but he, who is the author of his death. Our duty is to make sure that he really is guilty beyond doubt, and to ensure, if we can, that he can die with dignity.A longer exposition of the argument for capital punishment: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/08/capital-punishment-the-case-for-just... I’ve read this. It’s very well written and articulates many points we’ve raised on OzPol (over the years ...not just in this topic).
|
Forum
Pages: 
