Conservatives bringing back death penalty for Canadians abroad

myata · November 12, 2007

Yes. Death can be brought about in a humane manner, which is why some people chose euthanasia over waiting for a natural death.

Sorry, it's not like I believe you, but this is not the thread to discuss death penalty in general.

myata · November 12, 2007

The government is not abandoning anything. They are saying that they will on a case by case reviewing make better time and issues with the foreign governments. This will mean that the foreign governments will know this is nota knee jerk reaction ...

I.e this means that the government will now protect our rights "on a case by case" right? I wish the government that decides that for itself, first asked us what we think about such a significant change in interpretation of its role. What next? Application of law "on a case by case"?

It is ovbvious that you want the government to look after you from cradle to grave and to tell you that all is well, even in foreign lands when you know that is not so. The Canadian people voted out that type of government in the last election, ...

I see, Harper cons now consider government responsibility to protect the rights of Canadians as unnecessary luxiry? Somehow I thought so. Why didn't they say it in public though? What's wrong? Canadian people will certainly support that idea, will they? Why run and hide with "no comments"? Why forget mentioning these interesting policy changes in the electoral campaing? That would certainly give them (and you) some ground to mention Canadian people in this context.

Edited November 12, 2007 by myata

Wilber · November 12, 2007

old_bold&cold
The government is not abandoning anything. They are saying that they will on a case by case reviewing make better time and issues with the foreign governments. This will mean that the foreign governments will know this is nota knee jerk reaction and then also pay more attention to the request, as it will have had some level of scrutiny to make sure it is not about parking tickets etc. which is really a waste of time on both sides.

No they aren't. If you are convicted of murder in the US or any other democratic country that supports the rule of law (whatever that means because they won't clarify it) they are washing their hands of you. No mention if you are sentenced to death for any crimes other than murder which were never subject to capital punishment in Canada and yes some US states have them.

This is what Day said in the house and there is no mention of a case by case basis.

"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law,"

Period and when he was asked to clarify that statement, he refused.

bk59 · November 12, 2007

Again, this is false. Self defense is not wrong at all...in fact....it is encouraged as justified homicide. In the case of police actions, it is a duty to take lives in order to preserve life. So the physical act of killing somebody in and of itself is permitted and supported in law.

No. Killing someone else is never encouraged. But you will not be held criminally liable if you kill someone in self defence. Of course, even then there are limits. You will be held liable if someone drunkenly tries to punch you and then you pull a gun and shoot them dead. Because even the defence of self defence has limits. Likewise, it is not a police duty to take lives. It is a police duty to preserve life. In some situations that means that police are allowed to kill. But this is not the same as saying that killing is supported in law. Killing is not supported in law. But certain circumstances will excuse you from facing liability. This distinction is important.

Yet state's actions often result in the deaths of combatants and civilians alike. The act of killing is accepted whether intended or not.
But that's the point...it is permitted. So again homicide is authorized.

Nonsense...the goal is execution according to law, not lifetime incarceration. Far more people have been killed by justified police action or "collateral damage" in war.....it is ludicrous to think that the far smaller number of condemned murderers would be afforded so much more protection.

The goal is not execution according to law. You have started from the assumption that because some killings are seen as acceptable then capital punishment must be acceptable. You have started with the assumption that the goal is to execute.

The fact is, when a person is not an immediate danger to anyone no police force would be allowed to kill that person without being put on trial for murder. A police officer that shoots a man dead because he uttered a death threat (& only uttered a threat) will be himself arrested. If there is a non-lethal way of subduing that person then the police are obligated to use it. So the question becomes, if there is a non-lethal way for a justice system to deal with incarcerated criminals why would the state be allowed to kill that person? It seems hypocritical.

Your point about numbers is meaningless. Very few innocent people have been gunned down by police officers just because the police felt like shooting people. That killing is still seen as unacceptable. We will give those people protection even though a greater number of people have been killed in wars. Armed conflicts are a much different beast than a criminal justice system.

bk59 · November 12, 2007

There is a big differnce between "threatening somones life" and being aware of the consequences of your actions.

If you, as a prosecutor, say to a person "We will do everything we can to make sure that you face the death penalty and that you are indeed put to death, unless you sign this confession" then I think you know what the consequences of your actions will be.

In fact, I am hard pressed to come up with a situation where you threatened someone's life and you were not aware of the consequences of that threat.

bk59 · November 12, 2007

Most murderers are cowards who will give up the goods to protect their own skin. Plea bargain offers an out for these twisted souls.

Plea bargaining is not the same as threatening someone's life. It is true, a person may be more willing to plead guilty when threatened with the death penalty than if they were only facing prison time. Then again, a person may be more willing to plead guilty after being sleep deprived for three days straight, or being beaten.

A justice system is not concerned with simply getting convictions - it must be concerned with seeing justice served and finding the truth. Railroading people into guilty pleas is not the way to do this. Particularly when looking at innocent people facing murder charges. Do we really want them pleading guilty because they see the risk of death in front of them and choose prison? Or do we want them to have their real day in court?

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2007

No. Killing someone else is never encouraged. But you will not be held criminally liable if you kill someone in self defence. Of course, even then there are limits. You will be held liable if someone drunkenly tries to punch you and then you pull a gun and shoot them dead. Because even the defence of self defence has limits. Likewise, it is not a police duty to take lives. It is a police duty to preserve life. In some situations that means that police are allowed to kill. But this is not the same as saying that killing is supported in law. Killing is not supported in law. But certain circumstances will excuse you from facing liability. This distinction is important.

Again, this is false. Police are specifically trained in the application of deadly force. Such actions are supported in law. Deadly force is authorized under other circumstances as well (military, nuclear weapons security, etc.) Nothing you say can change this, because even with limits, the act of executing another individual is sanctioned. This is my only purpose wrt to the underlying argument that state sanctioned killing is wrong....I have demonstrated that this is not the case.

The goal is not execution according to law. You have started from the assumption that because some killings are seen as acceptable then capital punishment must be acceptable. You have started with the assumption that the goal is to execute.

Patently false...read the law in judisdictions with capital punishment....as in...."hanged until dead" (or the modern equivalent). A doctor is in attendance to pronounce the condemned dead, as this is the state's purposeful intention.

The fact is, when a person is not an immediate danger to anyone no police force would be allowed to kill that person without being put on trial for murder. A police officer that shoots a man dead because he uttered a death threat (& only uttered a threat) will be himself arrested. If there is a non-lethal way of subduing that person then the police are obligated to use it. So the question becomes, if there is a non-lethal way for a justice system to deal with incarcerated criminals why would the state be allowed to kill that person? It seems hypocritical.

Because it can....and does according to law. Your strawman cannot change this.

Your point about numbers is meaningless. Very few innocent people have been gunned down by police officers just because the police felt like shooting people. That killing is still seen as unacceptable. We will give those people protection even though a greater number of people have been killed in wars. Armed conflicts are a much different beast than a criminal justice system.

You have missed the point entirely.....from deadly force to lethal accidents during high speed pursuits. Again, the point is that we accept the death of not only the condemned, but even those who are not guilty of anything. Claiming that it is wrong for the state to take a life is ludicrous giving the many ways it does so. More laughable still is any measure to protect the most heinous criminals of all from the same fate.

bk59 · November 12, 2007

Again, this is false. Police are specifically trained in the application of deadly force. Such actions are supported in law.

Yes, police are trained in using deadly force. No, all actions that involve deadly force are not automatically supported in law. Your reasoning here is flawed.

This is my only purpose wrt to the underlying argument that state sanctioned killing is wrong....I have demonstrated that this is not the case.

Not really. Let's be a bit more clear here, since you seem to be unable to place the statement within the context of this topic. No one here is talking about armed combat. We are looking at state sanctioned killing within a criminal justice system. When is the state allowed to kill someone who is not an immediate danger to someone else? Compare this to the situation of when is an individual citizen allowed to kill someone who is not an immediate danger to someone else?

Patently false...read the law in judisdictions with capital punishment....as in...."hanged until dead" (or the modern equivalent). A doctor is in attendance to pronounce the condemned dead, as this is the state's purposeful intention.

You have given the goal of the death penalty. Not the goal of a justice system. There is a difference. If the question is whether or not the death penalty is acceptable, then you cannot say that since the goal of the death penalty is to execute people then the death penalty must be acceptable to reach that goal.

Because it can....

This is never a valid reason to kill people. States have in the past enacted laws that allowed slavery. Saying that it can be done in a law does not make it acceptable.

Again, the point is that we accept the death of not only the condemned, but even those who are not guilty of anything. Claiming that it is wrong for the state to take a life is ludicrous giving the many ways it does so. More laughable still is any measure to protect the most heinous criminals of all from the same fate.

Your argument boils down to the state is allowed to kill in certain circumstances therefore the death penalty is justified. This logic is weak at best. For the very simple reason that the state is NOT allowed to kill in other circumstances. If we used your simplistic argument then the death penalty would not be allowed simply by rephrasing the sentence.

capricorn · November 12, 2007

Plea bargaining is not the same as threatening someone's life.

I fully agree.

It is true, a person may be more willing to plead guilty when threatened with the death penalty than if they were only facing prison time. Then again, a person may be more willing to plead guilty after being sleep deprived for three days straight, or being beaten.

Is the implication here that detectives commonly use underhanded tactics to get a confession regardless of the evidence before them? I prefer to think that detectives use pressure tactics on murder suspects when they have good cause to to so, i.e. evidence of some sort. Am I so naive to think these detectives and investigators have morals and act within the boundaries of the law?

A justice system is not concerned with simply getting convictions - it must be concerned with seeing justice served and finding the truth. Railroading people into guilty pleas is not the way to do this.

Should we ignore the fact that those accused of murder would be afforded adequate defense counsel? The fact that a person is accused of murder does not negate their right to a fair trial.

Particularly when looking at innocent people facing murder charges.

This is precisely why I am against the death penalty. Say a person caves to pressure tactics on the part of aggressive interrogators, which I think happens rarely, we can only hope that a good defense would prevent the conviction of an innocent person.

Do we really want them pleading guilty because they see the risk of death in front of them and choose prison? Or do we want them to have their real day in court?

Thankfully, this question is not applicable in Canada so we need not fret over it. Nevertheless, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. If one is innocent of the charges, then a good defense will free the accused from those charges, regardless of the severity of the offense. There are also appeal processes to keep wrongful convictions to a minimum. No system is perfect, I'm afraid.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2007

Yes, police are trained in using deadly force. No, all actions that involve deadly force are not automatically supported in law. Your reasoning here is flawed.

At last...progress...and your admission that the state does support some actions that involve the application of deadly force.

Not really. Let's be a bit more clear here, since you seem to be unable to place the statement within the context of this topic. No one here is talking about armed combat. We are looking at state sanctioned killing within a criminal justice system. When is the state allowed to kill someone who is not an immediate danger to someone else? Compare this to the situation of when is an individual citizen allowed to kill someone who is not an immediate danger to someone else?

I have already demonstrated such circumstances, but you continue to deny that they exist.

You have given the goal of the death penalty. Not the goal of a justice system. There is a difference. If the question is whether or not the death penalty is acceptable, then you cannot say that since the goal of the death penalty is to execute people then the death penalty must be acceptable to reach that goal.
This is never a valid reason to kill people. States have in the past enacted laws that allowed slavery. Saying that it can be done in a law does not make it acceptable.

I don't care about such moral gymnastics, just the legal authority and jurisdiction to do so. The goal is to terminate the condemn's life according to law.

Your argument boils down to the state is allowed to kill in certain circumstances therefore the death penalty is justified. This logic is weak at best. For the very simple reason that the state is NOT allowed to kill in other circumstances. If we used your simplistic argument then the death penalty would not be allowed simply by rephrasing the sentence.

The logic is hardly weak...how can you underpin an argument against capital punishment because the state should never take a life when I have demonstrated that the state has done so many times and ways?

Edited November 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

bk59 · November 12, 2007

Is the implication here that detectives commonly use underhanded tactics to get a confession regardless of the evidence before them? I prefer to think that detectives use pressure tactics on murder suspects when they have good cause to to so, i.e. evidence of some sort. Am I so naive to think these detectives and investigators have morals and act within the boundaries of the law?

I am sure that in most cases there is no intention to use underhanded tactics. But the line blurs a bit when you ask questions like "Is there sufficient evidence to show this person is a murderer". This question may be answered by different people in different ways. A moral person may make what he or she thinks is a moral decision, and yet when examined from an objective point of view that decision may be morally questionable.

Should we ignore the fact that those accused of murder would be afforded adequate defense counsel?
...

Say a person caves to pressure tactics on the part of aggressive interrogators, which I think happens rarely, we can only hope that a good defense would prevent the conviction of an innocent person.

Sadly, adequate defence counsel is not always available. Particularly for those who cannot afford their own lawyers. Resources being what they are, sometimes those facing trial get the short stick and get a lawyer that is either sub-par or simply too overloaded to dedicate sufficient time to the case.

If one is innocent of the charges, then a good defense will free the accused from those charges, regardless of the severity of the offense. There are also appeal processes to keep wrongful convictions to a minimum. No system is perfect, I'm afraid.

It is true, no system is perfect. We can just keep trying to improve. Unfortunately the number of wrongful convictions that are discovered decades after the trials are over can show that even with a good defense, innocent people still sometimes end up being convicted.

bk59 · November 12, 2007

At last...progress...and your admission that the state does support some actions that involve the application of deadly force.

Before that post I had already made it quite clear that the police were excused from liability under certain circumstances. (Have you not been reading?) Just as individuals are excused from liability under certain circumstances. None of this changes the fact that there are situations where both individuals, and police, will be held liable for killing someone under other circumstances. Something you have yet to recognize.

I don't care about such moral gymnastics, just the legal authority and jurisdiction to do so. The goal is to terminate the condemn's life according to law.

Please continue to repeat your statement. Repetition does not change the fact that there is no requirement that a justice system kill convicts. The simple fact that many justice systems do not have as a goal the death of convicts is sufficient to prove that.

The logic is hardly weak...how can you underpin an argument against capital punishment because the state should never take a life when I have demonstrated that the state has done so many times and ways?

How can you underpin an argument for capital punishment because the state can take a life when it is clear that the state cannot take a life in most situations? Your logic is simply bad. You say that because the state can take a life in situation X, then it is permissible to take a life in situation Y. That is wrong. Just because the police can shoot a person who is about to shoot an innocent, does not mean that they can shoot a person for jay walking. In the criminal justice system, the state should never take a life simply because it can. Particularly when that individual is no threat to anyone else.

Which brings us back to...

I have already demonstrated such circumstances, but you continue to deny that they exist.

No, you have not. Actually make the comparison... go through and see when an individual can kill someone and when the state can kill someone.

In the criminal justice system, an individual is not allowed to kill another person. In very precise circumstances - self-defence where someone's life is in danger - then the individual will be excused from criminal liability. Even police can only use deadly force when the person they kill is an imminent danger to someone else. Compare this to the convict sitting in a prison. What danger is he or she to anyone else? It is hypocrisy to say that an individual cannot murder someone because of something that person did in the past, but the state can murder that person for that reason. Justice can be equally served by locking this person up for the rest of their life.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2007

Before that post I had already made it quite clear that the police were excused from liability under certain circumstances. (Have you not been reading?) Just as individuals are excused from liability under certain circumstances. None of this changes the fact that there are situations where both individuals, and police, will be held liable for killing someone under other circumstances. Something you have yet to recognize.

Liability is some cases does not remove the fact of no liability in others. I only need to demonstrate that the state can and does authorize the use of deadly force without any penalty whatsoever. This establishes the underlying concept of state sanctioned killing. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

Please continue to repeat your statement. Repetition does not change the fact that there is no requirement that a justice system kill convicts. The simple fact that many justice systems do not have as a goal the death of convicts is sufficient to prove that.

Justice system requirements are defined in constitutions & law, even more so by mandatory penalties in which the state purposely removes a judges discretion in the penalty phase of a trial. Canada's travels down the road to banning capital punishment included specific provisions for executing certain capital murderers (e.g killers of police officers). So we can demonstrate that many justice sytems can and do define the goal of execution until dead, regardless of other possible sentences.

How can you underpin an argument for capital punishment because the state can take a life when it is clear that the state cannot take a life in most situations? Your logic is simply bad. You say that because the state can take a life in situation X, then it is permissible to take a life in situation Y. That is wrong. Just because the police can shoot a person who is about to shoot an innocent, does not mean that they can shoot a person for jay walking. In the criminal justice system, the state should never take a life simply because it can. Particularly when that individual is no threat to anyone else.

How can you possibly continue this line of argument with such qualifiers as "...in most situations"?

Which brings us back to...
No, you have not. Actually make the comparison... go through and see when an individual can kill someone and when the state can kill someone.

In the criminal justice system, an individual is not allowed to kill another person. In very precise circumstances - self-defence where someone's life is in danger - then the individual will be excused from criminal liability. Even police can only use deadly force when the person they kill is an imminent danger to someone else. Compare this to the convict sitting in a prison. What danger is he or she to anyone else? It is hypocrisy to say that an individual cannot murder someone because of something that person did in the past, but the state can murder that person for that reason. Justice can be equally served by locking this person up for the rest of their life.

Again, I don't care about your analyses or moral positions in this matter. I only wish to demonstrate that the state can and does authorize the taking of "someone's life"....which is all that is needed to undermine one foundation argument for banning capital punishment. Many states have directly and indirectly taken many times more lives than have ever been extinguished through capital punishment, and will continue to do so. We accept this...ergo, the legal act of killing and individual by the state or citizens in and of itself is not cruel or unusual at all.

Edited November 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

old_bold&cold · November 12, 2007

It is getting foolish for people to try and defend the issue of no death penalty, when yes there are many such cases where the use of deadly force is allowed in law. Those with bledding hearts can sputter all they want, but if a large person is coming at them with a knife and says he is going to kill you, and you have a guns with in your grasp, you will pick it up and fire it, and you will probably aim for the head, just to make sure he is stopped. Or if a burglar is breaking into your house and threatening to kill your family, with a weapon, you would do what ever you could to kill this guy before he can carry out any of the things he says he will do.

A police officer can shot dead anyone who has a weapon and points it at anyone near by. If a person who has a black belt, has a Karate match where one of the oppoents dies, it will not be a muder offence, and yes he will get let go free of any crime. The lists can go on and on. So we say that we do not have the death penalty but only in the courts and only when circumstances allow us not to use it. But we do have death penalties in much of our every day lives, and circumstances just need to be pressing and immediate danger of death, or eminent death. That will never change and that is what sticks in the craw of those people who say "any taking of life is wrong, ni matter what". We all know them and we hear then all the time protesting this or that. But if their lives were ever threatened, they would be the first to say that the police should shoot who ever is threatening their life. It is all in the perspective, and that is how it should be.

Wilber · November 12, 2007

It is getting foolish for people to try and defend the issue of no death penalty, when yes there are many such cases where the use of deadly force is allowed in law. Those with bledding hearts can sputter all they want, but if a large person is coming at them with a knife and says he is going to kill you, and you have a guns with in your grasp, you will pick it up and fire it, and you will probably aim for the head, just to make sure he is stopped. Or if a burglar is breaking into your house and threatening to kill your family, with a weapon, you would do what ever you could to kill this guy before he can carry out any of the things he says he will do.
A police officer can shot dead anyone who has a weapon and points it at anyone near by. If a person who has a black belt, has a Karate match where one of the oppoents dies, it will not be a muder offence, and yes he will get let go free of any crime. The lists can go on and on. So we say that we do not have the death penalty but only in the courts and only when circumstances allow us not to use it. But we do have death penalties in much of our every day lives, and circumstances just need to be pressing and immediate danger of death, or eminent death. That will never change and that is what sticks in the craw of those people who say "any taking of life is wrong, ni matter what". We all know them and we hear then all the time protesting this or that. But if their lives were ever threatened, they would be the first to say that the police should shoot who ever is threatening their life. It is all in the perspective, and that is how it should be.

You are talking about the use of deadly force in order to protect ones self or save someone elses life. What does any of that have to do with condeming someone to death in a court of law? At that point a person is not in the act of threatening anyone.

Wilber · November 12, 2007

Again, this is false. Police are specifically trained in the application of deadly force. Such actions are supported in law. Deadly force is authorized under other circumstances as well (military, nuclear weapons security, etc.) Nothing you say can change this, because even with limits, the act of executing another individual is sanctioned. This is my only purpose wrt to the underlying argument that state sanctioned killing is wrong....I have demonstrated that this is not the case.

The police are not authorized to use deadly force as a form of punishment, even in the US. No one is authorized to use deadly force as a form of punishment in Canada.

Wilber · November 12, 2007

Liability is some cases does not remove the fact of no liability in others. I only need to demonstrate that the state can and does authorize the use of deadly force without any penalty whatsoever. This establishes the underlying concept of state sanctioned killing. The rest of your argument is irrelevant.

Our state does not sanction killing, it recognizes that under certain circumstance there may be no other alternative and is flexible enough compensate for that eventuality.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2007

The police are not authorized to use deadly force as a form of punishment, even in the US. No one is authorized to use deadly force as a form of punishment in Canada.

Correct, but the police are authorized to use deadly force, without arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment by a court of law. Ergo, state sponsored killing of individuals is sanctioned for certain conditions. That Canada (or the USA) would ban capital punishment on grounds to the contrary is specious.

There may be other political (e.g. human rights) issues worthy of consideration in Canada's stance vis-a-vis clemency requests, but the sanctity of human life is not one of them.

Wilber · November 12, 2007

Ergo, state sponsored killing of individuals is sanctioned for certain conditions.

Absolutely not in Canada. As I said before it recognizes that there may be no other alternative to save a life. The state isn't sponsoring anything. Couldn't be more different from state ordered executions which are state sponsored and save no ones life.

JerrySeinfeld · November 12, 2007

Absolutely not in Canada. As I said before it recognizes that there may be no other alternative to save a life. The state isn't sponsoring anything. Couldn't be more different from state ordered executions which are state sponsored and save no ones life.

Executions ar a penalty. That's why it's called "the death penalty".

You kill somon with aggravating circumstances, you die.

The choic is ultimately the criminal's. If he doesn't want ot be executed, he shouldn't commit capital murder.

bush_cheney2004 · November 12, 2007

Absolutely not in Canada. As I said before it recognizes that there may be no other alternative to save a life. The state isn't sponsoring anything. Couldn't be more different from state ordered executions which are state sponsored and save no ones life.

Such a goal may be laudable, but the means remains the same. In the face of authorized deady force, voluntary euthanasia, involuntary euthanasia, and even abortion on demand through the third trimester, saving a life quickly runs afoul of logic and reality.

Edited November 12, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

Smallc · November 12, 2007

Correct, but the police are authorized to use deadly force, without arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment by a court of law. Ergo, state sponsored killing of individuals is sanctioned for certain conditions. That Canada (or the USA) would ban capital punishment on grounds to the contrary is specious.

Deadly force is only authorized as a last result. Many police officers have gotten in trouble over the use of deadly force.

November 12, 2007

Should we then be humane by putting to death all those who request it and imprisoning those who do not? Or as a form of punishment, should we do the reverse? People usually wind up in solitary confinement because they are either a danger to somewone else or their behavior has crossed the line even for hardened criminals.
What about those other crimes which carry sentences of life but not the death penalty? Should that be an option for them as well. What about the three strikes states? Same for them? Hell, if imprisonment was so terrible you would wiping them out by the dozens every day.

I made a statement regarding the death penalty-- the question was raised regarding whether or not it can be humane. It can be. That's the bottom line. The issue isn't whether or not the death penalty itself is humane, because as I already pointed out, incarceration in and of itself isn't humane; all we can do is carry it out as humanely as possible. Same with the death sentence, and yes, as I already pointed out, death can be brought about humanely.

You keep bringing up that the prisoners don't chose it, but as I pointed out, some DO chose it -- and are prevented from it. So the state is making decisions about others lives -- whether or not they should live -- against the will of those who would rather not live all the time. And as I pointed out, that could be seen as inhumane. That could be seen as forcing someone to suffer in prison when they would rather be dead.

Naturally prisoners don't have a choice regarding their sentence. That includes the death penalty. It includes suicide. And as I already pointed out, in some cases, like Jeffrey Dahmer, prison was in effect a death penalty. It's hardly humane to put someone in that environment.

So it's not a matter of whether or not the death penalty is humane, because incarceration/solitary confinement in and of itself hardly fits the definition of humane.

Whether something is moral, or whether it is humane, are two very different issues. And as has already been pointed out, every nation goes into war with the idea of killing-- and a lot of those killed are innocent. I repeat. The Canadian general in charge in Afghanistan said 'some things are worth killing for.' Killing is killing. It isn't more "moral" to kill people in war than it is to give them the death sentence. The death sentence is more 'personal' than war, so it likely makes us more uncomfortable, but it's not more moral.

Wilber · November 12, 2007

Whether something is moral, or whether it is humane, are two very different issues. And as has already been pointed out, every nation goes into war with the idea of killing-- and a lot of those killed are innocent. I repeat. The Canadian general in charge in Afghanistan said 'some things are worth killing for.' Killing is killing. It isn't more "moral" to kill people in war than it is to give them the death sentence. The death sentence is more 'personal' than war, so it likely makes us more uncomfortable, but it's not more moral.

Certainly the morality of going to war is debatable but the object of going to war is not to kill people, it is an unfortunate byproduct deemed necessary to bring about whatever was considered worth going to war for. I think that any soldier would agree that the fewer people who get killed in a war the better.

The object of sentencing someone to death is to kill them. Nothing else.

November 12, 2007

Certainly the morality of going to war is debatable but the object of going to war is not to kill people, it is an unfortunate byproduct deemed necessary to bring about whatever was considered worth going to war for. I think that any soldier would agree that the fewer people who get killed in a war the better.
The object of sentencing someone to death is to kill them. Nothing else.

Of course the object of going to war is to kill people. Do you think it's to round up the enemy and bring them to trial? The object of dropping a bomb is to kill the people it's dropped on. Nothing else.