When the question of a State-imposed death penalty comes up, I generally point out that no government anywhere, at any time, has ever been honest or honorable enough to be trusted with the power of life and death.
Statists yelp at this simple truth.
They come up with any objection they can think of to excuse murder-by-state employee.
To say that my assertion that no government can be trusted with the power of life and death isn't taking into account the fact that freelance murderers also prove they can't be trusted with that power is overlooking that no one "trusts" them with that power. They take it.
Yet, people argue that because bad guys kill, "we" should empower a State to do so, also? That's crazy. Two wrongs don't make a right. And it overlooks the fact that governments are made of people. Flawed, violent, greedy, aggressive, dishonest- and all too often, murderous people. In fact, the "job" selects for the worst of the worst- the ones smart enough to do their murdering from behind a veil of legitimacy while those exactly like them are called "criminals".
A government which can impose death has no limits. And, they all- by definition- claim to have this "authority". That's why "limited government" is such a dangerous lie and a Utopian dream.
.
What should be done when someone commits premeditated murder or manslaughter ?? If crime is not handled by a community, then by whom ?? Is detention (versus execution) by the state acceptable ??
ReplyDeleteA "community" never handles anything- only individuals do.
DeleteAnd no State action is ever acceptable.
Now, if you KNOW without any doubt whatsoever that a particular person is guilty of premeditated murder/manslaughter, then deal with it as you see fit and take your chances in arbitration after the fact.
Who pays for detention? If it is paid voluntarily at the request of the victim/survivors, then it's none of my business. I would never give money to that cause, though. If someone is too dangerous to allow out of a cage, they need to be dead.
I might agree that whoever he killed needed killing, in which case I would not support punishing him. If I think what he did was wrong, I would condemn his act publicly and encourage everyone to watch him and be ready to defend themselves from him at the first sign of aggression. And shun him. If he takes the hint, no problem. If he continues on his path I hope his next target blows his head off. If they fail, I would look the other way if someone decided he was too dangerous to allow to live.
No, it's not a perfect solution- none is possible. But it's better than what we are saddled with now.