Self defence is about preserving your health, it is not about administering punishment. Killing someone in self defence is not administering the death penalty. And killing someone, who at one point posed an immediate threat to someones life, once they are in custody and therefore their threat is neutralised, cannot possibly be considered self defence. Whereas retrieving your property is retrieving your property, regardless of whether you do so immediately or two months later. Either way, the justification is the same. The justification is plainly not the same when killing in self defence and executing a prisoner in custody. That isnt to say you cannot make a case for the death penalty. You can argue for it as a deterrent. You can argue for it as a cost saving measure (it easily could be cheaper than lifelong imprisonment, you could execute immediately after conviction, albeit there would be a non trivial issue over increased risk of wrongful execution). You can argue for execution simply on the basis that there is a moral imperative to carry out just retribution for crimes. But what you cannot argue is that the death penalty in the moment (self defence) is justifiable, therefore applying the death penalty under completely different circumstances is automatically justifiable, because what it is that warrants self defence is not applicable to a prisoner in custody.
Posted on: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 18:26:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015