Orf wiv their 'eads [2]
Aug. 9th, 2006 09:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyMy post on capital punishment the other day appears to have sparked a fair old debate, which is always gratifying. It's interesting to note that the pro/anti camp on the poll seems fairly evenly split, which surprised me considering that LJ tends to be the natural environment of the woolly lefty and led to me thinking that the atavistic human desire for revenge is quite strong across the population.
After consideration, my own opinion of the death penalty is that I'm against it; not because I consider people inherently worth saving or because I'm worried about ethical concerns of turning the state into a murderer, but simply because I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk and the death penalty is just the thin end of the wedge. Let's face it - I wouldn't trust Tony and Gordon with my phone number* and so any suggestion that a legal structure giving a state with them in charge the authority to kill its people is just plain laughable.
I think that most people wouldn't argue that there are some people out there who just plain have it coming and if they were kiled by a falling piano tomorrow then the world would be a better place for it - whether or not we should go out and kill them, however, is another matter.
Last Sunday I found myself in the happy position of rowing a remarkably attractive young lady across a lake (this hasn't got much to do with my point, I just wanted to boast) and this topic of conversation came up. "Ah", she said. "What about euthanasia?"
Good point, thinks I, and the more I think about it, the better it gets, especially as the people who oppose the death penalty tend often (in my experience) to be pro-euthanasia, and vice versa.
By way of comparison: The death penalty is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical)professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who by any reasonable moral standard have really got it coming. Euthanasia is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical) professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who have, at worst, just been unlucky. The question is: is it legitimate for the state to allow the legal killing of people who've just been dealt a bum hand, but not to allow the legal killing of people who can reasonably be said to have it coming?
*Because they'd sell it to telemarketers to try and pull the Labour party out of the £14m black hole it finds itself in. Either that or John Prescott would make dirty phone calls to my sister.
After consideration, my own opinion of the death penalty is that I'm against it; not because I consider people inherently worth saving or because I'm worried about ethical concerns of turning the state into a murderer, but simply because I reckon that giving the state the power of life and death over it's citizenry is a really bad idea which historically has gone badly wrong so often that it simply isn't worth the risk and the death penalty is just the thin end of the wedge. Let's face it - I wouldn't trust Tony and Gordon with my phone number* and so any suggestion that a legal structure giving a state with them in charge the authority to kill its people is just plain laughable.
I think that most people wouldn't argue that there are some people out there who just plain have it coming and if they were kiled by a falling piano tomorrow then the world would be a better place for it - whether or not we should go out and kill them, however, is another matter.
Last Sunday I found myself in the happy position of rowing a remarkably attractive young lady across a lake (this hasn't got much to do with my point, I just wanted to boast) and this topic of conversation came up. "Ah", she said. "What about euthanasia?"
Good point, thinks I, and the more I think about it, the better it gets, especially as the people who oppose the death penalty tend often (in my experience) to be pro-euthanasia, and vice versa.
By way of comparison: The death penalty is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical)professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who by any reasonable moral standard have really got it coming. Euthanasia is a system whereby highly trained (legal and medical) professionals are given the option of ending the lives of people who have, at worst, just been unlucky. The question is: is it legitimate for the state to allow the legal killing of people who've just been dealt a bum hand, but not to allow the legal killing of people who can reasonably be said to have it coming?
*Because they'd sell it to telemarketers to try and pull the Labour party out of the £14m black hole it finds itself in. Either that or John Prescott would make dirty phone calls to my sister.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 03:37 pm (UTC)IVF material- just goo.
Abortion- as long as its goo (as opposed to China where abortion is practiced up until the MOMENT OF BIRTH!!!!!) then its not my buisness what a woman does with her body. Its goo. Its part of her. SHE decides.
Suicide- the last act of a selfish person. Their choice- you go on with ya bad self!
"A Just War"- BAWAH-HA-HA-ha-ha-hahahahahahaha!
Pa-lease!
War is hell.
But then shit happens. And when shit happens civilisaed nations drop bombs on peoples head. Oh dear.
Welcome to realpolitik. Welcome to the world of poo!
There is no such thing as a JUST WAR (World War II was not just- the Nazi's were evil and so deserved it, but if it were a just war, we would have attacked in '37).
When it comes to war- someone is shooting bullets at our soldiers? i want our soldiers to napalm the fookers- and laugh, watching the fookers burn! That's war... War is hell.
Oh but there is ONE rule in war that is not open to any negotiation.
YOU DO NOT TARGET CIVILIANS.
I dunno if people can understand the subtlety of my point here, its an obscure one I know, so maybe if I put it like this...
YOU DO NOT _EVER_ TARGET CIVILIANS!
:)
OK, so civilians get it in the neck- poo happens! When a bunch of highly trained men are firing high explosive shells... life is NOT a video game yeah? One should lfee from war zones yeah?
And no, I am not intolerant of our soldiers when they find some snotty 14 year old brick thrower, taking him around the back and kicking him in the face so hard his mother doesn't recognise him.
But the deliberate targetting of heavy ordenance/small arms fire upon civilians for the sake of hitting the civilians?
War Crime!
End of story.
:)
Just my take...
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 08:49 pm (UTC)You tell 'em MArc. When you hold a controversial opinion, don't hold back!
If only you'd suggested this to people a hundred years ago, all kinds of trouble could have been avoided. Nations could have made a treaty pledging never to do such a thing. Possible in Geneva.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 10:47 pm (UTC)Oddly enough the number of nations who BROKE that little convention is quite interesting.
try- all of us.
I have yet to find a nation who hasn't broken this little rule (OK, a PROPER nation- Andorra doesn't count).
In fact I find myself split somewhat- I have the zero tolerance feeling towards anyone who deliberatly targets civilians, and yet quite like 'Bomber' Harris...
I suppose the vitriol is a throwback to a recent debate I had over recent activities in the Middle East- wherein you find yourself being in the odd position of trying to defend said 'obviously left-wing' view.
(grins)
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 11:14 pm (UTC)Its NOT a proper country.
Its made up country with a canal.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 11:27 pm (UTC)Panama is the made up country with the canal.
COsta Rica is just the silly country without an army right?
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 11:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 08:39 am (UTC)By the more civilised nations with aggressively free press, that is. Plenty of exceptions in countries where they shoot journalists.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 09:58 pm (UTC)