Saturday, January 24, 2015

"Capital punishment" is murder. Here's why

The reason a State death penalty is murder seems to be lost on some people.

Killing someone who is currently attacking or violating private property is not murder. It is self defense. If self defense fails and the victim is murdered, it is still OK- or wonderful, even- if the attacker is killed at the time and place of the attack by a bystander since the assumption that everyone around is still in mortal danger would be reasonable. If no one happened to be there to kill the attacker at the scene, killing him is then off the table, ethically.

Killing that same person later- when they are no longer an imminent threat- is a revenge murder. I realize a large majority of people think revenge is sometimes OK... but it isn't.

For one thing, if you weren't there, you don't really know what happened. Making a mistake and demanding restitution from someone who turns out to have been innocent is bad enough, but making a mistake that results in death is unforgivable.

Having a government employee do the killing on the victim's (or "society's") behalf changes nothing- unless you believe the propaganda about the State- meaning the individual humans comprising it- being somehow exempt from the ethical rules all humans are subject to.



  1. While I agree with you that the state shouldn't be involved, capital punishment is sometimes necessary. How else do you stop a murderer from murdering again? Once a dog goes rabid, you hunt it down and kill it. You don't wait for it to kill again. The community - the people - should mete out justice, however, not the state.

    1. How about tracking him down to demand restitution- if he refuses, and tries to attack anyone in your group, then you can kill him in actual self-defense.

  2. And how, exactly, does he pay restitution to the loss of someone's wife, mother, or son? And if he's non-violent THEN? Murderer's rarely take on people prepared.

    1. There can never be real restitution in a case of murder. Maybe blood is all the victim's family will accept- if so, let them do what they think they must, and live with the consequences. If you want to take the risk to get involved, again, do what you think you have to. I don't think it is right to hunt down and kill someone who is not a current threat.

      Most murder is spur of the moment/in the heat of passion, or is caused by "laws" that wouldn't exist in a free society. Most "spur of the moment/in the heat of passion" murderers are not repeat offenders. The risk of letting them live is not very great. The risk of getting addicted to revenge killings you have legitimized is probably much worse.

    2. I also have my doubts that truly aggressive people would live long in a free society- too many armed potential victims and bystanders.

      I think a LOT of the "difficulties" with justice today come from The State and its perversion of society.

    3. So, suppose you track him down and he is non violent, and agrees to pay whatever term is agreed to be acceptable. Maybe he even pays it. Then next month kills again. What then?

    4. I don't know.
      There is no way to eliminate all evil- innocent people will always die no matter what "system" you implement. But adding to the evil is, to me, not a good solution.

  3. The issue of whether or not a person is truly guilty is a valid one....there have been plenty of instances where people have been incarcerated for decades and then exonerated due to a number of reasons. However there are also plenty of instances where the issue of guilt is simply not debatable. The person charged is patently obviously clearly guilty. In those cases execution is in order......not because it provides restitution
    since that is not possible. The purpose of execution is to serve as a deterrent. We can never know how many people did NOT commit murder because they knew that if they did they would be executed. What we DO KNOW for certain is that no one who has been executed has EVER committed a second murder.....but
    LOTS of felons have been released from prison after being convicted of murder and committed murder AGAIN. Murders that would have been prevented if they had been executed.

    1. I guess I need to repeat (and link to) the one thing I see as the biggest problem with capital punishment, after the fact, even when you KNOW the guy is guilty: Becoming what you fight. Because I see this in almost every case of really adamant capital punishment advocate, to some degree or another.

  4. just don't...or WON'T get it.

    Lets say Ray Ray walks into the local liquor store. He wants some smokes and a 40, The clerk tells Ray Ray that he has to pay for this merchandise. This incenses Ray Ray to no end so he pulls out his gat and busts a couple rounds into the clerk sending the clerk on to the great hereafter. Then Ray Ray calmly shuffles off down the street. That is Murder. The willful killing of another person without legal justification.

    Two blocks down the po po, having been alerted to the shooting by an eyewitness that Ray Ray hadn't noticed catch up to him.....On his person they find a gun, some smokes and a 40 oz bottle of malt liquor.
    Ray Ray matches the description of the shooter and is thus hauled off to jail for processing. In the course
    of the investigation it is learned that the gun found in Ray Ray's pants ballistically matches the bullets taken
    from the dead clerk. Ray Ray has blood spatter on his clothing that DNA matches the dead clerk. The video
    inside the store CLEARLY shows Ray Ray shooting said ALSO shows Ray Ray putting his hands on the counter where his fingerprints are found. In short there is simply NO QUESTION that Ray Ray killed that clerk for the cost of a pack of smokes and a beer.

    The state....after spending many months, tens of thousands of dollars and a lot of effort try Ray Ray before a jury of 12 people. Ray Ray even has a FREE LAWYER to help him defend himself in court. But after having all the evidence presented and all the witnesses involved testify the jury after reviewing everything states that Ray Ray committed murder. The judge then sentences Ray Ray to ride the lightning. 20 years later after
    millions of dollars have been spent on Ray Ray to imprison him and to tie up the courts with endless appeals
    Ray Ray finally receives his just reward.....he is strapped to old Sparky and fried. Ray Ray will NEVER kill
    another innocent person again. What happened to Ray Ray was NOT MURDER. It was justifiable homicide facilitated by a deliberate state process for the purpose of preventing Ray Ray from EVER KILLING AGAIN.....and it works. Ray Ray is dead....society is safer.

    If you can't see the difference you are an idiot or willfully blind. Justifiable homicide is exactly that whether it
    is meted out by the intended victim at the time of the criminal conduct or LATER by the's still LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE and it still PROTECTS SOCIETY.

    1. "there is simply NO QUESTION that Ray Ray killed that clerk for the cost of a pack of smokes and a beer"
      OK, but now he is caught and is no longer a credible danger to the innocent. Killing him now might make you feel better, but it can neither bring justice to the dead clerk, nor protect "society". It's revenge.

      No State- no government- anywhere in the entire history of the world has ever been honest or perfect enough to exercise the power of life and death. They claim to have that authority, but they don't. Each time they act on that false claim, they- meaning the individuals who actually commit the "execution"- commit murder.

      I am not speaking of "legally", since that has absolutely no relation to "ethical" or "moral" (however you may define "moral").

      The person doing the killing for The State has defiled himself. He has to pretend to believe the State is infallible, and didn't lie. And if he has a shred of sense he knows that not to be true. He is taking The State at its word. He has to assume that the trial, which he didn't attend, actually occurred exactly as he was told. He has to assume the crime lab techs didn't lie- yet evidence shows they do, because they want to give the cops the results they want. He has to assume no cops lied on the stand- but they do as a matter of routine. He has to be sure no other witnesses lied or remembered things incorrectly, but psychology shows how poor human memories actually are. He has to be sure that no mistakes were made and things happened exactly as you laid out. The number of innocent people on death row, cleared with DNA evidence in the past few years, should demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that "the system" doesn't work and only finds the truth by accident. It is better that all guilty escape punishment than to kill one innocent person who was falsely convicted. Sorry, but that's just the way it is, no matter how much you or I might dislike it.

      But, even if the guy really did it, it costs less stolen money to just keep him caged than to go through the legal contortions to kill him. As I say, it is simply a hunger for revenge and has nothing to do with justice.

      And I understand that desire. It doesn't make it right.

      The State can NEVER mete out "justifiable homicide" because it is not an individual and can't be charged with a murder; it is only a made-up mental glitch. If the victim's relatives can't "legally" track the murderer down and shoot him after 20 years, then the State's employees can't either. The executioner has to be personally accountable just as would be the victim's son if he shot the murderer decades later. If not, there is no consistency. "Just doing my job/following orders" doesn't cut it.

      Nothing will ever prevent all murders (nor any other initiation of force or property violation), but doing things "The State's way" is about the worst possible choice imaginable. A universally armed population, with absolutely zero penalties for self defense, would be a much better choice, and yet there would still be murders and some murderers would still get away with it- just like they do now.

      Your choice: you can support the authority of the State to kill- which means there is nothing off-limits for The State to do- or you can reject it. Just own your choice.