Newsgroups: alt.politics.socialism From: joshb Subject: During civil war Death Penalty for grave crimes, or absolutely not ? Organization: law4.org D.A.V.I.D. Constitution & Revolution User-Agent: slrn/pre1.0.0-18 (Linux) Message-ID: Date: 10 Dec 2014 11:33:32 GMT Is it a good idea to initiate a death penalty during a civil war, which might merely be a war against Fascism (an end stage of capitalism), or even a civil war that comes out of a social Revolution ? Because of the experience in Ukraine and statements of the Donbass Militia, it seemed perhaps a good idea to allow the instatement of the Death Penalty. Not for foreign troops, but for domestic front criminals and disorderly troops (disorderly would be is raping, pillaging and murdering troops that are part of your own front; not about drinking a few beers too many). The idea is less radical then it might seem, as those who have won the greatest victories against raging Empires, such as Mozes (the Mozes, Moshe Rabbeinu), and Washington (American founding father), have done so almost with vengeful prejudice. This force has kept their own armies under control from becoming the problem that they where trying to solve. However on second thought, perhaps the risk it creates is greater then what it can solve; although this is certainly difficult to define ahead of all possible civil wars in the future. One could say it is impossible, yet a Constitution has to foresee all possible futures. What do you think ? After re-consideration, undersigned has thought it wiser that if all things have to be considdered, the strength of a Constitution (perhaps for both sides) is with caution against the gravest of acts, being murder. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Amendment 17: toc This Amendment 17 (Death Penalty) is retracted Although this amendment (see below) was inspired by practical reality of a civil war that was ongoing, and statements by those waging it, on second thought this does not seem to be a worthy addition to this Constitution. It should be possible to detain people. When it occurs in large numbers, they are prisoners of war and not to be executed anyway. Criminals can likewise still be imprisoned, since the war probably needs to be capable of large scale imprisonment. If it is not capable of large scale imprisonment, it may still be capable of small scale imprisonment, which is for example for crimes such as this Death Penalty article would be for. If it is not capable even of small scale imprisonment, then perhaps it can not win in any case. It may be the case that the Constitution can be dishonored if it doesnt work during a civil war, but the risk of it being dishonered by people using or abusing this Death Penalty article are even greater. It also does go against the article on Harm, and the basic principle behind it. Giving a group the power of the Death Penalty makes the situation more menacing and less likely to be resolved peacefully at some point in the future. It gives a platform to people who argue for the execution of prisoners, which will harden both sides against each other if it where to occur. It is also a personal burden on the home front if it is engaging in the Death Penalty, that can lead to sadness and demoralization. If the home front just imprisons everyone and not kills when killing is not absolutely necessary when an enemy is assaulting with murderous force, and people know that all prisoners of war and even captured alive criminals are still alive and awaiting some sort of resolution of their situation (but not their execution), then this is likely to bolster their confidence in the situation, and their faith in the fact that they are fighting for a just cause ~ and have not done more harm then was absolutely necessary in the face of being murdered (injustly) directly at that point of combat. So behaving, without the Death Penalty, will also give the home front a propaganda advantage against the other side, and is likely to inspire confidence in those who are on the fense. Because on what side of the fense does one want to be: where they do not murder people whom they have in their power, or where they do ? The case is easy. (The original amendment 17 is left in the document (below), because having made it and then retracted it makes the case even stronger against it. Date: 10 December 2014, some 3 and a half months after making Amendment 17. This is the usual way this Constitution is written: adding, changing and/or removing.) --- Death Penalty --- This Amendment 17 (Death Penalty) is retracted Common Militia: Death Penalty When it is necessary to effectuate the Death Penalty during a period of war, the Representative Government or the closest thing thereto that can be achieved - that is loyal to the people and represents the general will - must be asked to create a law for it. There must be actual fighting between units of a size at least as large as mentioned under article Common Militia: General, Minimum armed size. (...) law4.org/law-extended.html#amendment_death-penalty -- law4.org
Posted on: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 11:50:17 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015