[jim]

Originally Posted by Folgore

Errrrrrm no. You have misread my argument here. Nothing to do with citizens vs. foreigners. What I'm saying is that it is OK to kill in self-defense. However, I fear that stipulation has distracted you from the main point. We are not discussing instances of self-defense, we are discussing whether or not the death sentence should be imposed on a convicted traitor or deserter (or any other malfeasant, really) -- when that person no longer poses a threat to individuals or the nation because he has already been caught and incarcerated. At that point it's no longer a question of self-defense, it's a question of punishment. The question I was asking is this: Should the state mete out death as a punishment for convicted criminals? Clearly, many here say aye, and that's a widely accepted position. My own view is that once someone is no longer a threat -- i.e., once he's been put behind bars for life -- killing him is just gratuitious.

Hmm, when I read about some b.st.d that has murdered a little child I think gratuitious is just fine by me.

[Rush104]

I guess what bothers me about keeping a traitor or a battle field deserter alive is this- by keeping him alive, you are showing respect for his right to live. Is such an individual worthy of that respect? Certainly he did not show such respect to the people betrayed by those actions...

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Folgore

Errrrrrm no. You have misread my argument here. Nothing to do with citizens vs. foreigners. What I'm saying is that it is OK to kill in self-defense. However, I fear that stipulation has distracted you from the main point. We are not discussing instances of self-defense, we are discussing whether or not the death sentence should be imposed on a convicted traitor or deserter (or any other malfeasant, really) -- when that person no longer poses a threat to individuals or the nation because he has already been caught and incarcerated. At that point it's no longer a question of self-defense, it's a question of punishment. The question I was asking is this: Should the state mete out death as a punishment for convicted criminals? Clearly, many here say aye, and that's a widely accepted position. My own view is that once someone is no longer a threat -- i.e., once he's been put behind bars for life -- killing him is just gratuitious.

Well, I think your example called for the response, as there are many wartime examples where death is dealt to the enemy when the dealer is not in direct danger. Say...a B-29 strike on Nagasaki, for instance. Was Bocks Car under direct attack when it dropped Fat Man? No, it was not...so your point of direct self-defense is rendered moot by your own example of wartime justification. In the case of the Fat Man, a death sentence was imposed on "malfeasants", really.

Please re-read your post and be reminded that you did seem to indicate there are only two scenarios where killing is "justified", war and self defense. I'm not sure how you can differentiate between the killing of an enemy during war and the killing of a traitor. Both are a threat.

Originally Posted by Folgore

And here's another argument -- touched on by Kubikali and Jack Raiden -- I'll throw out: Should society be in the business of condoning death? There may be times when killing a human being is justified and the only solution -- as in war or self-defense -- but apart from those "kill or be killed" situations, is it OK for society to say, "Yep, killing people is fine"? Even really bad people? The death penalty serves revenge, not justice. Lock 'em up for life, I say -- but don't kill 'em.

The killing of someone who is behind bars is not gratuitous. It's called justice...and if you can't see the difference, I don't think I can explain it to you in 100 words or less.

[Rush104]

Also, let's look at it again from an economic view (and if I'm straying off topic I apologize beforehand)-

Let's say someone deserts in the heat of battle, and one of his squad mates dies in his place. Let's say this squad mate is married, and has a kid. Let's also say the deserter gets caught and incarcerated (for the rest of his life). How much more money is going towards keeping this deserter alive, compared to what would be paid out in survivor's benefits to the widow and child? I'm betting that the amount spent to keep the deserter alive ends up being FAR more than what the widow and kid gets. Is the deserter worth it?

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Is the deserter worth it?

No.

[Folgore]

Originally Posted by jim

Hmm, when I read about some b.st.d that has murdered a little child I think gratuitious is just fine by me.

Originally Posted by Rush104

I guess what bothers me about keeping a traitor or a battle field deserter alive is this- by keeping him alive, you are showing respect for his right to live. Is such an individual worthy of that respect? Certainly he did not show such respect to the people betrayed by those actions...

See, these are both very good examples -- and I agree with 'em. Jim, I have the same feelings you do. Rush104, a very good and subtle point. I guess I would say that when someone commits such a heinous act, he is not worthy of our respect for his right to live -- but that respect for life in general should trump the disrespect he has shown, and the contempt in which we now rightly and justly hold him. I think in these cases we should appeal to the angels of our better natures, to cop a phrase.

I think about how I'd feel if someone hurt my family. Would I want that person to die slowly and painfully? Absolutely. But would that undo anything? No. Would it ease my pain? No. All it would do is bring more violence into the world, and drag us down.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Folgore

I think about how I'd feel if someone hurt my family. Would I want that person to die slowly and painfully? Absolutely. But would that undo anything? No. Would it ease my pain? No.

And if that person is dead, you could sleep better knowing that he will never be released and allowed the opportunity to do it again. And that's the real point.

[tank nut]

Ok............... you guys are getting way to nuts with this lol

[Shawn 507]

Originally Posted by jim

Shawn , I have heard many ex soldiers talk about their service time and all of them said the same thing. I never thought about the big picture king or country, I fought for my buddy next to me, I didnt want to fail him.

I back your point of view 100% the reason is its the only way you can run an army.
It has to be that way or as you say the whole thing falls apart.

However in the final analysis it seems that loyalty and willingness to sacrifice yourself for your comrades is what counts when the bullets fly.

I just thank all those that went before me and gave their all so I could enjoy the life I have.

Jim your right. We do it for each other, and if we can't count on that what do we have? We also do it for Flag, Country, Mom's Apple Pie, etc... When we get singled out for thanks by Mr and Mrs Public, and you see the genuine look in thier eyes. You know you did it for them too. And I don't know how you can betray that!

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

Jim your right. We do it for each other, and if we can't count on that what do we have?

Right. Not only do you do it for the guy next to you, but you also NEED to firmly believe that the guy next to you will do it for you. Mutual trust and respect is the glue that holds any unit together, whether they are grunts in a foxhole or aviators in a ready room.

I gotta tell you, Shawn, you airborne types hold my deepest respect. No BS. You guys jump, not really knowing what you're going to find when your feet hit the ground, so you really have to trust the guys jumping with you. No room for someone who's going to cut and run when the *** hits the fan.