You say that, then you say
I'd say that's a broad interpretation right there.
The Right to Self Defense
- Thread starter madanthonywayne
- Start date
What about the victims who suffered almost unheard of pain from their tormentors. When do they get a say ? I guess we should feel very sympathetic to wards someone who tortures some little girl for days then dismembers her body piece by piece then asks for no pain when they are put to death. Let me just have 1 hour with them and I'll show them no pain, I promise.
I'm with you. I think justice would be better served if the murderer were killed in the same manner as his victim.
Today I asked the question about the right to self defence to international law Asoc.prof. Dr.iur. A. Fogels and he told me that the right to self defence is an aspect of the fundamental human right - the right to life, so essentially the right to self defence is the same as the right to life which is also a right of natural law.
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
Exactly as I have iterated throughout this thread. It is a limited fundamental human right, both legally and culturally in the US and most of the world.
Learned Hand, J.D.
Last edited:
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
As a matter of political and legal philosophy, society is more "decent" than the cruelty imparted by convicts awaiting capital punishment. To regress to eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, places the society in no better light than the man who first undertook the act. Politically, our society has always had Christian underpinnings, beginning with the Puritans and the Sermon on the Mount, and therefore our methods of punishment are not as barbaric as some cultures.
That doesn't mean that we don't feel like kicking their ass in a million places. But when it comes down to it, do you really want to be the person who does exactly what the convict did and dies for? It's a bit hypocritical to kill somebody for killing another in the same shameless and brutal manner in which he killed. Death is the ultimate punishment, not the method of death.
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
Not when it comes to capital punishment and current societal norms. It's not the method of death which is the punishment, it is the death itself. So, culturally speaking, we have advanced under the rule of law that capital punishment should seek an end which is, to borrow a cliche, "most civilized."
Exactly as I have iterated throughout this thread. It is a limited fundamental human right, both legally and culturally in the US and most of the world.
Learned Hand, J.D.
That's my as a bachelor in law opinion too. I would not say that it's a limited right though. Each and every right has borders, and can be restricted when other rights switch in. But you are not limited to protect your life, you're just prohibited to abuse that right, because your attacker too has a right to life.
I don't know about US law, but in Latvia you are not limited to protect your life, you just have to protect it according to the threat. Of course there's a problem there, and under threat we don't tend to think rationally, but that's for the individual judge to decide.
Sorry if I didn't understand what you meant by limited, I haven't really wholly read this thread.
I think you're wrong. I think the reason isn't our "decency", but the laws and the threat of punishment is what keeps us from doing what we might want to criminals and people who do us harm. Laws, courts and the threat of punishment is nothing more than the jail bars on our "civilized" jail cells!
And if you think I'm wrong about that, think about what the world would be like if all laws, courts and police disappeared from the planet. Do you really think we're such decent beings that there'd be peace and goodwill?
The very thing that humans do best is being hypocritical.
Baron Max
But imprisoning someone in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives could also be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment. Perhaps soon the condemned will be set free to murder once again if this continues going the way its heading.
I'd like the victims family or loved ones choose the way the CONVICTED person dies.
So would I.
And if they choose to free the man?
Oh yeah I forgot about those religious freaks and their forgiveness.
Why is it only religious people?
Maybe they feel only God can judge them
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
I don't know about US law, but in Latvia you are not limited to protect your life, you just have to protect it according to the threat. Of course there's a problem there, and under threat we don't tend to think rationally, but that's for the individual judge to decide.
Sorry if I didn't understand what you meant by limited, I haven't really wholly read this thread.
No problem. In the US, the fundamental (or absolute) right to self defense is limited to the amount of force necessary to prevent injury to life or limb. Generally speaking, you can't shoot a man who comes at you with a stick. You could mace him, then flee.
But should he come at you using deadly force (like a knife, gun, ax, etc.), you too may use deadly force. Some states differ a bit on a couple of nuances, but it is generally the same.
Learned Hand
Registered Senior Member
Sounds very Hobbsean. Man is born innately bad, and needs the cage of laws of civilization to exist in society. Generally, I prefer Lockean political philosophy, but to be honest, in reality I think it's probably a mixture of both. Either way, that's exactly why the rule of law needs to be upheld.
Yep, upheld by the force of arms! ...at the muzzle of a gun! But not by a bunch of mamby-pamby words!
Baron Max
Good one.