Running with guns is more fun.
The Right to Self Defense
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
how?
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
Is there a particular state you're referring to?
Execution in and of itself is not cruel and unusual punishment under federal law. There is a constitutional challenge before the US Supreme Court now regarding lethal injections. Apparently some Drs. have hypothesized that the 3 injections given for executions could cause an anguishing and painful death, but due to the anesthetic (given in inexact proportion), the prisoner would be unable to cry out. Kind of like the Wes Craven movie, The Serpent & the Rainbow.
I meant that if criminals lose the protection of the law upon becoming criminals, why can't they be subjected to cruel and uunusual punishment?
Good point. But since there is a constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, it must be meant to apply to criminals. After all, we shouldn't be punishing someone who's commited no crime.
Yeah, but that's one of those mamby-pamby, liberal, doo-gooder amendments, ain't it. Surely wasn't in the original Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Baron Max
Didn't say that. Personally I don't care if you shoot yourself or your wife. But I'm not going to rush out and buy one either. (And, if you care, I voted against the gun control proposals on the poll that was posted--a couple I could support but not all.)
No. But I don't own a car either.
So why were you the one to introduce statistics vis-a-vis gun ownership. Seems a little disingenuous to me.
Last edited:
Baron Max:
You really are a bundle of contradictions.
Yet in my gun control thread you've been arguing that your Constitution must be upheld as sacrosanct in its protection of your right to own a gun.
Do you know that this Constitution you so admire is one of the pivotal documents of the Enlightenment? Your constitution was written by a bunch of whimpy, liberal doo-gooders trying to tell you what to do.
And yet, strangely, you're all for the Constitution, but seemingly against everything it stands for.
How you can hold these conflicting views at the same time puzzles me.
You really are a bundle of contradictions.
Yet in my gun control thread you've been arguing that your Constitution must be upheld as sacrosanct in its protection of your right to own a gun.
Do you know that this Constitution you so admire is one of the pivotal documents of the Enlightenment? Your constitution was written by a bunch of whimpy, liberal doo-gooders trying to tell you what to do.
And yet, strangely, you're all for the Constitution, but seemingly against everything it stands for.
How you can hold these conflicting views at the same time puzzles me.
If the founding fathers had known how broadly "cruel and unusual" would be applied, they never would have included it. As Learned Hand mentioned, some jackasses are arguing that lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. I can't imagine a more gentle way of killing someone than lethal injection.
As captital punishment is included in the constitution, clearly it can not be unconstitutional. And lethal injection is more humane than any of the methods available in 1776.
Wimpy? These men risked everything to bring a new nation into being. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. They fought a war against overwelming odds and defeated the greatest army on earth. No, these were no liberal do-gooders. And they sure as hell weren't wimps.
Pandaemoni
Valued Senior Member
I believe the argument against lethal injection is that it paralyzes you for several minutes, and renders you unconscious for as little as 30 seconds. So you pass out, and when you wake up, you are not-so-well on your way to feeling what it feels like to suffocate to death. (But you'll look peaceful, because you're paralyzed, so at least it's easy on the rest of us.)
I'd rather be shot in the head.
It's stupid to waste the Supreme Court's time on this bullshit. Just give the murdereres a choice. Lethal injection, the chair, hanging, firing squad. Whatever. So long as they're dead at the end, justice is served.
I'd think the "problem" with lethal injection could be solved by throwing some morphine into the mix. That way, even if you're concious, you'll feel no pain. After all, we can't have our murderers suffering! Heaven forbid they endure a little of what they inflicted.
Take it up with the Baron.
He apparently believes anybody espousing Enlightenment values is a wimpy liberal doo-gooder.
Bells
Staff member
You do, of course, see the irony in your statements? At least, one would hope so.
In regards to the thread topic.
I do not view self defense as a "fundamental human right". It is a legal right and defense. Just as I do not view the right to own a gun as being a "fundamental human right" under the guise of self defense as a doctrine. Some do view it as a "fundamental human right", but up until now, the court has been wary of labeling it as such. As Learned stated, it exists in common law and in statute in certain countries and States. But on a philosophical level, I do not see how it does apply. If we are to deem human instinct and a personal reaction to danger as a "fundamental human right", then as Learned pointed out, we need to define the meaning behind "fundamental". At present your right to self defense is restricted to the level of threat you may face. While rights, fundamental or not, are defined and restricted by the laws of each State, self defense, in my opinion, has yet to be applied as a "fundamental human right".
The UN does recognise self defense of member States as a "right" under Article 51. The act of disarming the local population of member States falls to the Government of each State. But that is a different subject and thread altogether.
What's the difference between a "fundamental human right" and a regular ol', normal "human right"?
Baron Max
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
They do not lose all protections of the Constitution, or negative rights (see my lengthy post above). They lose all but those rights afforded to one convicted of a crime. That's where federal and/or state statutes kick in (such as, what method of execution shall be imposed), and the courts then analyze them in conjunction with a particular case, which then becomes precedent.
Actually, it's the 8th Amendment. So it's in the Bill of Rights.
Here's the Preamble to the Bill of Rights:
"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution."
A fundamental right are those freedoms which a society views as absolute. As civilization cannot exist without governance, the charter of that civilization issues what freedoms shall be protected and what freedoms are transferred to the government (which are then no longer individual freedoms, unless changed in the manner set forth in the charter, or revolt, etc). John Locke would be a good read on this point.
In the absence of a statute or regulation dealing with self defense (i.e. terminating it, restricting it, etc.), it remains a fundamental right of the people. Simply because the right may be taken away or restricted by the legislature does not make it any less fundamental than freedom of the press. The common law was brought to this country from England, and ensued as their fundamental law of person and property since the Magna Carta.
Last edited:
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
I would argue that self-defense is a fundamental human right (or absolute freedom) shielded by the U.S. constitution, and adequately restricted by common law and/or statute. The 7th Amendment to the US Constitution, which applies to all 50 states via the 14th Amendment, states in pertinent part:
"and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
Hence, if a jury determines that an act of violence was accomplished in self defense under the common law (as read to the jury by the judge), the appellate courts cannot reweigh or readjudicate the evidence -- including both the facts and credibility of the witnesses. However, the decision may be overturned if it lies contrary to law.
Common law is always a work in progress. Think of it as a piece of architecture that continuously expands. In some areas, such as self-defense, it is well settled in concrete. In other areas, such as defamation, it still has many "niches" which have not yet been filled in.
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
What do you mean? Cruel and unusual punishment is one phrase in the Bill of Rights that is rarely broadly construed by the U.S. Supreme Court. It is strictly construed, and many of the cases in the lower courts deal with individual circumstances. For example, about 100 years ago, a man sentenced to death who was excessively heavy claimed that death by hanging was cruel and unusual. The courts reviewed it, and found that due to the convict's sheer and unusual weight, it would be cruel and unusual punishment to execute by hanging because the science of the day determined that his head would be ripped from his torso when the blocks were removed. Just as society progressed beyond the gavel of the French Revolution, so has the U.S. Supreme Court slowly followed societal trends and norms.
Your idea of letting the convict choose the method of death is a very good one. It would take some burden off the judicial system; however, death by a choice over which excruciating method to die from would still be suspect of cruel and unusual punishment. Today's standard: no pain.
So, ...you're saying that when I take over the USA and make myself king, with the backing of lots of guns and military might, I can just do away with all of those "fundamental human rights" and there's not a fuckin' thing that anyone can do about it?
So, ...is that to say that "fundamental human rights" are secured and defended by the might and the threat of arms?
If Osama and his gang makes the rest of the world bow to his threats, then "fundamental human rights" is just a fuckin' bunch of words with no meaning?
Now I'm wondering just how many of "We, the people" got to actually vote on those "fundamental human rights"?
Or was it another one of those things that was dictated by a few, and forced upon the rest with their approval?
Baron Max
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
1. Yes. That would be Cuba.
2. Yes, if necessary. In the U.S., if a judge/jury determines execution, the Executive Branch of the government performs it, and ensures its performance.
3. Heil Hitler.
4. Every time you vote in an election. As for US & its constitutional amendments, 2/3 of the states where the state government has sought to ratify in their legislature by 3/4 (there are other ways, but you get the point . . .).
5. Jefferson, in writing against several of the Federalist papers, implored the states to accept the Constitution as a better instrument for a "more perfect union" than the present confederacy. So actually, it's just the opposite. States feared the power of a centralized government, largely due to the English rule. As a compromise, Jefferson proposed the Bill of Rights that would enable state's citizens with certain freedoms that could not be taken away on a whim, and removed the States' concern that the government was too powerful.
2. Yes, if necessary. In the U.S., if a judge/jury determines execution, the Executive Branch of the government performs it, and ensures its performance.
3. Heil Hitler.
4. Every time you vote in an election. As for US & its constitutional amendments, 2/3 of the states where the state government has sought to ratify in their legislature by 3/4 (there are other ways, but you get the point . . .).
5. Jefferson, in writing against several of the Federalist papers, implored the states to accept the Constitution as a better instrument for a "more perfect union" than the present confederacy. So actually, it's just the opposite. States feared the power of a centralized government, largely due to the English rule. As a compromise, Jefferson proposed the Bill of Rights that would enable state's citizens with certain freedoms that could not be taken away on a whim, and removed the States' concern that the government was too powerful.
Last edited: