The FAST Approaching Gun Ban

[Stavros]

I am opposed to capital punishment as a matter of principle, and because in practical terms it assumes the condemned has received a fair trial and a sentence that merits the crime when in too many cases an examination of the process reveals flaws that do not merit a death sentence.

The principle of capital punishment can only exist as an exact reflection of the crime -in which case both parties -the state and the condemned- are engaged in an act of murder. If murder is wrong, then it must be wrong for the state to practice it. The methods chosen by the state to kill are interesting in themselves. When the guillotine was introduced in France it was hailed as a swift, efficient and even humane mode of execution. By contrast, the beheading by sword is less efficient, it has been known to take even an expert in Saudi Arabia two or three swipes to completely sever the head from the body. The correlation of beheading with contemporary practice in some parts of the world I assume means it is repugnant in the USA, yet I amazed that even after the revelations of the Nazi death camps, the gas chamber was continued until its last use in Colorado in 1967.

I think this another thread anyway; and I don't approve of your chosen method, Trish, as I can't imagine you ever being condemned of a crime. But there is still time...!!

[Ananke]

NOBODY owns another person's life. Therefore it is my opinion that capital punishment can never be justified.

[broncofan]

The principle of capital punishment can only exist as an exact reflection of the crime -in which case both parties -the state and the condemned- are engaged in an act of murder. If murder is wrong, then it must be wrong for the state to practice it.

One of the most interesting murder cases we learn about in American law schools is a British case called Dudley v. Stephens. And if I remember the holding of the case, it is that the only necessity that allows someone to take a life is that which exists in self-defense. The case involved British sailors who killed their cabin boy because he was starving anyway, and afterall they needed to eat. So, they saved two lives by taking his. The court held it was murder because the boy was not an actual threat to them, so self-defense did not apply, even in the case of strict necessity.

But an act of homicide is not necessarily murder. I wonder if some argument could be made that if in a capital case the victim would have been able to take the defendant's life to save his own, the state can vindicate his interests post hoc. By killing the defendant after the fact, the state steps in for the victim and does what he failed to do in real time.

Of course, self-defense doesn't actually cover acts of revenge. But if a person can forfeit his right to live in the process of killing someone, it's not a huge stretch to say that he might forfeit it after the fact upon a careful judicial determination.

Anyhow, I believe the crown stepped in and pardoned the condemned men in Dudley v. Stephens. So, the state can and does occasionally violate individual liberties for what they view as the greater good of a community.

In Dudley, there was a utilitarian calculation that two living cannibals was better than three dead sailors. I wonder if there's a place for the state to make these kinds of utilitarian calculations in extreme cases. Does the public policy of deterring murder justify the killing of murderers?

I oppose the death penalty for the same reasons as Trish. But I don't have any moral qualms about someone being killed, if it could be determined that he/she killed someone with a culpable mental state and had no legal excuse.

[broncofan]

I just want to add that I respect the position taken by Ananke and Stavros on the death penalty. That is more of a civil libertarian position I think...there are some things the state should not be able to take from a person regardless of how compelling the need.

One interesting place where courts have struggled with the issue of necessity is in the case of conjoined twins where only one is viable. The courts have tried to make very attenuated self-defense arguments to justify the killing of the "parasitic" twin in order to save the life of the "stronger" twin. If courts have so much trouble making the argument that a doctor should be able to kill one child in surgery out of necessity, I can understand the apprehension in the case of the death penalty where the state is never executing a person out of necessity.

There's also a third possible reason to object to the death penalty. That is that you think the state should be able to kill but you don't think it actually serves any public policy. Does the death penalty deter murder? Does the death penalty provide an extra order of punishment over life imprisonment?

Edit: Last paragraph misleading. What I mean to say is that you think the state should be able to make a utilitarian calculation and kill if it increases total utility, but you don't believe it ever does. In a sense, you don't think the killing of a criminal accomplishes much of anything and maybe it comes at a great cost.

[Stavros]

Broncofan -I think this is moving away from the intentions of the thread, so it might be best to create a new one for issues like capital punishment, euthanasia and so on. Briefly, there is clearly no evidence that the presence of the death penalty has ever deterred murder.

[broncofan]

Broncofan -I think this is moving away from the intentions of the thread, so it might be best to create a new one for issues like capital punishment, euthanasia and so on. Briefly, there is clearly no evidence that the presence of the death penalty has ever deterred murder.

True. Next post in this thread on gun laws or another thread at some point for this topic.

[thombergeron]

U.S. Judge Upholds State's Tough Assault Weapons Ban

Merely the latest in a series of decisions by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, that have upheld assault weapon bans.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals to own an AR-15. This has been self-evident to many of us for some time, but it's nice to have courts affirm it.

[robertlouis]

U.S. Judge Upholds State's Tough Assault Weapons Ban

Merely the latest in a series of decisions by the federal courts, including the Supreme Court in the Heller decision, that have upheld assault weapon bans.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee the right of individuals to own an AR-15. This has been self-evident to many of us for some time, but it's nice to have courts affirm it.

Nobody outside the Armed Forces needs, or should be allowed to own, an AR-15. It's utterly mad.

[Ben in LA]

......

[bobvela]

Nobody outside the Armed Forces needs, or should be allowed to own, an AR-15. It's utterly mad.

Call me crazy... but I thought they were called the 'bill of rights'... not the 'bill of needs'.

More so... you realize that the Armed Forces do not much use the AR-15... instead they use the M-16 (variants).

What's the difference? Semi-automatic vs burst fire/fully automatic. Or are you advocating to limiting the US armed forced to using only semi-automatic rifles in combat?

Lets ignore your error in definitions for a moment... we'll assume you meant an M-16...

That being said... are you aware of what it takes for a civilian (or private organization) to lawfully own an M-16 (which is legal, though difficult), thus subject to the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was expanded in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Firearm Owners' Protection Act in 1986?

It has long requires a Class 3 tax stamp from the BATFE which costs $200, which these days tends to take ~9 months for the BATFE to come back on your paperwork... which for an individual requires finger printing and the OK of your local chief law enforcement officer (who don't always say ok).

Even if you go the trust or corporation route, you get to avoid the local LEO signoff & fingerprinting... but still get/have to pay the $200 for the tax stamp and wait the ~9 months.

BTW... because the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 put an end to the manufacturing of 'machine guns' which could be transferred to a private owner, the prices of the limited (and alas decreasing supply) of legal 'machine guns' for transfer has only gone up... and for an M-16 you are looking at spending on the order of $15 to $20k.

Are you really worried about private ownership of such things?

Exactly how many crimes have we seen committed with legally owned fully automatic M-16's (aka 'machine guns') in the last 10, 20 or 50 years?