I question the relevancy that one's views about the death penalty have to
one's views on self-defense. The law recognizes the right to use lethal
force to prevent not just murder but a much wider range of crimes that cause
severe bodily harm. Set aside the moral justifications (which I think quite
sound) for that principle; epistemic problems alone counsel it's adoption.
We cannot know which vicious attacks will result in murder, nor which
forceful defenses will cause death. The law quite reasonably errs on the
side of the preventing harm to innocents.
The death penalty poses quite a different epistemic problem, given that the
legal system has a great many checks to provide that only the gulity get
killed. Granted, the legal system sometimes errs in such cases--that,
however, is not the question. The question is whether victims' faced with
potential death and using uncertain tools raise different problems from legal
systems grinding through murder cases. The answer: Yes, very.
Hal wrote, in relevant part:
>I am curious, do people who advocate using guns against robbers also
>support the death penalty? And would they support expanding the range
>of crimes which deserve death, since they are personally willing to kill
>in response to sub-lethal crimes? Would they even go to the point that
>they would support the death penalty for robbery?
T.0. Morrow
http://members.aol.com/t0morrow/T0Mpage.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:06 MDT