Justin:
> I think this position is politically effective as well as
> correct. It avoids the charge of being naive about vicious
> criminals while preserving the real objections to the death
> penalty that I think motivate most of us.
>
I can only second that. I would also like to add that I really appreciate the legal arguments that you post to this forum - not only because of their clarity, but also because of the retributivist position that you take. My biggest problem with arguments proposed not just by the DP opponents but left and right wing ideologues in general is that they want to establish a primacy of a moral principle they happen to favor over the rule of law - e.g. thou shalt not kill that "ought to" apply equally to everyone everywhere - as determined by whom? To me, this is a foundation of a theocracy - in fact that is precisely what the likes of Thomas Aquinas argue i.e. that "natural law" (as determined by church, of course!) trumps and forms the foundation of the "human law."
A secular alternative of such views is the position that the law does not need any external justification other than being promulgated and upheld by legitimate authorities. From that is follows that breaking the law itself requires retribution regardless of any utility or disutility or moral dilemmas the infraction or retribution may cause. It is so, because doing otherwise would undermine the fundamental principle that law is binding in itself (rather than on some external moral or religious authority) and that is sufficient to command the duty to obey it on the pain of receiving the prescribed punishment. Without the punishment the duty to obey the law would simply not exist.
It furthermore follows that if the law (as interpreted by courts) says that killing of kind A (e.g. execution or in a war) is acceptable while killing of type B (e.g. while committing armed robbery) is not - that is the only thing that matters, regardless of any other opinions, moral principles, religious beliefs or what not. Quite frankly my problem with the argument that some universal proscription to kill be applied uniformly to everyone, including the state and law enforcement, is not only that it undermines the sovereignty of law, but that it opens the gates of hell for the right wing agenda not just to defined "unborn" life but also establish a moral (i.e. xtian) authority over the secular one.
Joanna: <<<And Woj will probably say that entertaining this possiblity is just loony, idealistic nonesense. But I think that if it were not possible for human beings to find a state of grace out of which to act, then there would really not be a point to human life.>>>
Not really. I do believe that having ideals and love for humankind is very important, seriously. I just happen not to buy the xtian shtick about "turning the other cheek" or "being born again" ("reformed" "redeemed" or whatever), "merit making" i.e. helping those "fallen" and "less fortunate" to earn good graces in heaven, etc. I think these are nice-sounding buzzwords of little practical significance, something usually given as an advice to others rather than principles by which people live themselves. I happen to think that there is plenty of opportunities in everyday life to practice lofty ideals, forgiveness and love of others without the need to search for reprehensible monsters as objects to demonstrate one's moral merits.
J Tyler:
> I take them into account: (1) their fears are unfounded,
> ridiculous, and usually racist; (2) the victim's sense of
> imbalance caused by heinous crimes and their need for
> certitude, justice, and closure is not a legitimate
> penological consideration. Victims are not the plaintiffs in
> criminal cases, the people are. When the desires and needs
> of victims takes precedence, vigilantism--and hence
> injustice--results. Anbody will do, and due process flies
> out the window.
>
> The argument against the death penalty is a simple one, not
> religious and not conspiratorial: rulers don't get to execute
> their victims.
Good luck selling it to the public. If you start winning any converts, let me know. I'm genuinely curious who, other than those already converted, would buy such a line.
And a bit of an unsolicited advice. "A fool is trying to convince me with his arguments, a wise man - with my own" - an old Sufi proverb goes. If you want to be effective, as opposed to self-righteous, you really need to learn how to use the other side's arguments, not just your own.
Wojtek _______________________ DISCLAIMER: Opinions posted by this writer to this forum are solely forms of literary criticism exercised as the First Amendment right, and do not necessarily reflect the author's views or attitudes toward real-life people, including other writers posting to this forum, groups of people, institutions, or events to which the critiqued texts may refer, either explicitly or implicitly. Any statement asserting or implying such views or attitudes on the basis of this writer's opinions posted to this forum is thus unfounded, and may be libelous. ________________________