“The most important human right is the right to live”

No, that would be one of the pseudo “human rights” made out and pushed by the EUropean state funded “humanists”, such as the right to housing [at the expense of others].

I just doesn’t make any sense in terms of natural rights - although yeah, it sounds cool and caring on paper - becauseliving is not something that can be granted and/or justified by law in the first place (well, at least not by human laws that is. But surely, you weren’t talking about God?).

While “human rights” do indeed apply only to the living(As far as I’m informed, nobody ever started a campaign to stop the murder of the dead by an oppressive state, but feel free to correct me) life itself has an unpredictable albeit assured end that’s (generally) out of your control - or anyone else’s for that matter. A human right is an immanent principle (meaning it applies to anybody indifferently, while everybody’s life is, hopefully, a very personal and varied experience)that holds its value even in time and places where it’s not respected, and can’t disappear, be lost or taken away completely. What’s more, it doesn’t pass away with you, unlike life.

I can see where you’re coming from(I mean, apart from France) - you apparently wanted to take a cheap shot at the death penalty “in a democracy” (Hm, I wonder which one...)- but you’ve started with a wrong assumption.

“No state, no society should be allowed to kill its citizens.

That’s why death penalty isn’t compatible with a democracy.”

Talk about a simplistic deduction… Anyway. So let’s see: the “right” to live is not one(unless you’re talking about abortion, but that’s another debate). What is, on the other hand, is freedom and in the consecrated terms, “the pursuit of happiness”, implying that we can seek happiness and wealth without the fear to be killed arbitrarily, either by the State or by another group of citizens or individualsamong which we live.

In other words, it means we shall not bedeprived arbitrarily from our life, because we ownit. Only a slave doesn’t own his life, as in fact he/she doesn’t own him/herself at all.

See? There goes the right to ownership again, at the very root level of life, and the reason why it is the most important. It even precedes freedom actually, since self-ownership defines the grounds for liberty.

You have, as we just saw, the right not to be killedarbitrarily, including by the State, but - even before you reach that point - the right not to be searched, incriminated, arrested and prosecuted arbitrarily- all kind of things that do happen in totalitarian states.

In short, in any decent liberal democracy, and in thealways possible event that you would violate other people’s rights, you have the right to a speedy, public and fair trial by jury, with the assistance of counsel for your defense (Maybe that does ring a bell?) because, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”, one of the important terms here being “the right of others”something that your phony and self-centered “right to live” completely overlook implicitly.

As far as these conditions are respected(no arbitrary arrest, prosecution and conviction, and a fair trial) I can’t see anyreason at all why the death penalty wouldn’t be “compatible” as you put it, with a democracy.On the very contrary: since there is an ultimate crime (you acting according to your will without respecting the equal rights of others and killing somebody arbitrarily - whatever your reasons), then there has to be, naturally, an ultimate penalty (you being killed rightfully)

If not, the whole notions of “Rights” and “Law”(natural law of course)simply make no sense at all, as they can be violated at will.

“If the state can decide to kill you, then your “freedom” is a gift implicitely granted to you by the state.”

Well, that’s precisely what can and does happen anytimeonly in a totalitarian state (Saddam Hussein anybody?), where coincidentally – hold on, here goes a big surprise – you’re not free indeed, and whatever freedom you think you have, actually isa gift from the said State, - and one that it can give and take back at will, of course.

That does not happen in any liberal democracy I can think about - and before you start to name some(Hm, I wonder which one...)try to make sure that “the state decide to kill” anybody… In doubt, check the part about “fair trial”.

But then your point wasdemocracyand the death penalty, not dictatorship and death penalty, right?

Unless you’re really going to name that “democracy” you were thinking about, and it turns out to be one of the “popular” flavor – China, North Korea, etc.

Could it be one these you had in mind I wonder?

Well Damian beat me to it masterfully again.

I shall therefore assume that gl has his/her answer. I also assume he/she should start to understand the distinction between the penalty punishing a crime and the way justice(infallible or not) is served. These are two separate things, the later being more than often (say, in China) nothing but a sham to justify ultimate or disproportionated penalties to punish opinion crimes (that is to say imaginary crimes)

As Damian put it, it’s about proportionality, not justice in the sense of a set of laws enforced by a judicial system - and so I guess it’s time to quote Jefferson in full now: “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”

And you still have to answer Damian’s question by the way, to which I would add: how come the anti-death penalty mob is so concerned about it taking place in the USA under the conditions exposed here before, but just don’t give a flying f* about places such as China(20.000 executions since 1990 after “grossly unfair and summary trials")North Korea, or a large chunk of Africa?

Probably because they think that the USA have greater moral principles (...)

Again you’re constructing your argumentation on the false assumption that the death penalty is not “moral” under clearly defined conditions(i.e. the Rule of Law in liberal democracies, as opposed to the rule of power and arbitrary of totalitarian regimes), which is precisely what I have been disputing so far. Therefore, the rest of your answer doesn’t hold water. Sorry.

You should be concernedprecisely by China because the regime has little (if any)moral principles. Unless of course, you happen to have a very twisted conception of morality.

(...) death penalty sometimes results in killing the wrong guy (...)

I see. Throwing the baby with the bath’s water again.

Let’s make it clear: you’re making a point against the infallibility of the prosecution process here, but in any case not against the legitimacy of the death sentence itself.

Finally, I leave it to Damian to catch up on your answer to his question, if he can make any sense out of it, as I’m not sureIunderstand what you mean actually.

I understand the distinction between the legitimacy of the death penalty and the way this sentence is used in a particular set of rules.

But you obviously don’t care. What’s more, when I talk about the infallibility(or not)of the prosecution process, I’m referring to liberal democracies, as it should go without saying. The prosecution’s case in totalitarian states is simply a joke.

Since you know that applying the death penalty will result in irreperable mistakes (which is not the case for other kinds of punishment)

That’s utterly incorrect and this is where your whole argumentation collapses I’m afraid.

Unless you happen to own the secret of time travel, I’d like to know how you could “fix” the mistake of a 30 years sentence(for instance)served in jail by an innocent.

Actually, no matter the length of the imprisonment, any sentence is as “irreparable” as any other. You can’t give back the days of this persons life, be it 1, 10 or 100. They’re irremissiblylostand that’s “irreparable” just the same.

In fact, I’d love to hear what your self-proclaimed moral superiority and good feelings could lead you to tell a poor fellow who had most of his life wrecked by such sentence. If I follow your logic, I imagine we could tell him to shut up and stop complaining since after all, he’s still alive… How noble of you.

And please, don’t tell me that it’s a less serious offence, just because the poor bastard is alive to mourn his lost life.

We all die one day, but I’m far from being convinced that spending the rest of your life bitterly pondering on the unjust deprivation of the first half – or to actually die in prison, considering that if they’re convicted on the charge of murder, the alternative to death sentence would be life in prison - is in any case a more enjoyable fate.

But anyway, let’s push that a bit further and apply it to your moral dilemma equation:

1. One who broke the law shall be jailed 2. A decision of justice cannot result in jailing an innocent.

Now what do you propose? Let’s empty the prisons, wipe out the penitentiary system and completely give up the ideas of justice and law?

The moral dilemma you impose onto the death penalty(and again, curiously enough, not to any other sentence) is in fact already taken into account by the judicial system of advanced countries. This is why there are extensive investigations and counter-investigations, with ever evolving techniques improved precisely to reduce the risk of error (Because here comes another Great Lesson of Life: zero-risk does not exist), this is why there are lawyers, witnesses, jury, habeas corpus (which actually deals with the other moral dilemma that you apparently don’t care too much about: detention)and a whole set of appeal system relying on the principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

The way I can see it, your answer to that is: okay, considering that we may convict an innocent, then we shall not convict anybody. Including the guilty of course, since you assume that we can’t really tell who is and who is not with 100% accuracy.

As a side note, I’ll add that if we where to follow that kind of logic, it would reduce nearly all human activity to zero(risk is inherent to the nature of life. Dealing with it is always a question of balance between potential outcomes and the expected benefits or failures), but that’s another debate.

It leaves you with a big problem anyway(well, several in fact) : what do you do with them? Even if I was to accept that to save an unknown and unpredictable number of potential innocents (that’s 1. certainly marginal, thank to the “safety trigger” of the judicial process and 2. very likely to be decreasing according to the sophistication of investigating techniques) you shouldn’t punish the murderers (Certainly a largely superior proportion, thank to the said sophistication), then you still have to face the fact that you’re either going to jail innocents – in most case for life - or completely give up with justice.

Or do you declare a moratorium and… What?Lock everybody without trial - including the handful of innocents for that matter - until you’re finished talking on a very touchy subject – which could take several years? (and end up leaving them to jail instead of executing them...)

A bit sadistic of you, if you ask me. And definitely unacceptable morally speaking.

It always strike me that the case that saw the final victory of the anti-death penalty faction in France(and the lasting fame of the Socialist lawyer who “won” it, Robert Badinter) was that of Patrick Henry who turned out to be genuinely and incontestably guilty of the murder of the 7 years old Philippe Bertrand, strangled beforethe request of the ransom, his body let to rot under the bed of an hotel room in the mid 70s.

Talk about a symbol of the protection of the innocents indeed…

(Coincidentally, I also notice that the morally superior power-that-be and that know better what’s good for us, carefully avoided to consult the French people on such an important question. But of course, they know better than the rabble, right?)

I’m afraid that the moral dilemmayou are facing is that either you arbitrarily declare that it’s okay to punish the innocent in one way but not in another, or that the cause for concern that has to be questioned and improved (and is, actually) is the structural process leading to the sentence, not the nature of the sentence itself.In short, the fact that the sentencecan be wrongly pronounced doesn’t make it wrongper se.

“Just like the right to keep and bear arms is a warranty that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical state, abolition of the death penalty is the warranty that this tyrannical state won’t be allowed to kill you.

Consider any tyranny, and you’ll see that it resorts to death penalty.”

Thanks for the information but this is getting tiresome really, and you may consider reading what I actuallywrote. I made a clear distinction, notably in my previous answers to you and lg between liberal democracies and totalitarian regimes.

“if life is seen as a possession, then the right of possession is the most important right”

Well, it’s not exactly so much about seeing “life” itself as a “possession” than the general principle of self ownership.

That makes your use of a conditional form rather queer since there really isn’t much to ponder here. Unless you’re ready to accept the idea of slavery, of course.

”Now, I don’t see why the “ultimate penalty” should be death penalty. For me it’s life in prison.”

This is a ridiculous statement that you’re obviously making without thinking. If the ultimate penalty was life in prison, then it means that death would be aless serious oneand could even be considered first to punish the same offence with less severity… Say, before sentencing the repeat offenders to life in prison?

Interesting logic.

”If someone commits 10 times your (not defined) “ultimate crime”, you can’t apply 10 times your ultimate penalty”

Well that’s where you’re making another mistake: the simple fact that it is theultimatepenalty means precisely that applying it 1 time is enough.

”So your linearity turns out to be “degressivity” to the worst law offenders.”

Hehe. In fact, it reinforces my point: since one can commit the ultimate crime several times but can only receive the ultimate punishment once, then it definitely means one shouldn’t be spared.

”In fact, you can’t really apply mathematics-type rules to justice, but you can be sure that your “proportionality” is nothing but an illusion.”

This is not about mathematics, nor is it the old “an eye for an eye” rule. You’re missing the point (sorry) for “proportionalitity” is relative to thenature of the crime and the natureof the punishment answering it, not the number of time you did it.

I thought that was rather obvious.

“Laws can be unjust and enable executions for crimes like adultery (Iran for example), poaching (medieval France)” and so on. These aren’t arbitrary decided executions, but will you defend it ?

A dictatorial state can create laws that will condemn you (a dictatorship is characterised by the concentration of legislature, executive and judicial, and sometimes religious, powers).”

Again, thanks for the extensive information on the means and ends of the totalitarians. See my first answer in this comment, as well as the previous ones. See the distinction I made about death sentence under therule of law and the same sentence under the rule of power and arbitrariness. And tell me where you saw me defending its application by a totalitarian regime…

If you recall,you were the one challenged for being much lessvoiceful to condemn it in such countries (China?) actually. But you slid into a blessed oblivion on that part. Again.

”A dictatorial state can create laws (…)It also may make false proof (Mumia’s defenders pretend such a thing, but it’s another debate as you would say, right ?).”

And you’re therefore implying the United States is a dictatorial state. Must be fancy and fashionable among the other tinfoil hat bearers, but here it will only gain you a slightly amused silence, the one people usually reserve for the retarded nephew at Auntie Lulu’s Christmas party.

”Death penalty means that the sentenced person is deprived of the possibility to enjoy any of the rights a human being can pretend to.”

Nope. It means the sentenced person deprived someone from each and every rights, human or not,arbitrarily and he is being proportionallypunished for that, at the end of a long legal and moral process.

I shall add, as a side note, that this tendency to stand for the rights of people who don’t give a damn about their victim’s has some really disgusting feel. Very French Left indeed.

”Prison for life is the loss of liberty, but it’s compatible with Jefferson’s words quoted by DF("Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.), the rights of the others that justify this loss of liberty being the right to be protected.

That makes a lot of difference, and that’s why a “decent liberal democracy” shouldn’t use death penalty.”

You’re not making any sense(what’s the relation to Jefferson on liberty here?), and you’re dodging the question of proportionality again, which is not really surprising, considering that you didn’t understand it’s nature. I’d say therefore that your “logical” conclusion on “why we shouldn’t” doesn’t hold again, and for the same reasons as before.

”In his mind, and in the mind of people like him, he is a martyr.”

There’s nothing in his mind, because he received the ultimate punishment. He’s friggin’ dead.

As for “other people like him” I don’t know… What are you talking about? Anybody in particular?

”I’m not really interested in the other cases.”

That’s brilliant, and actually resumes pretty well what I think of the anti-death penalty crowd. Thanks a lot.

(Also, I didn’t get the point of your last “me saying Chinese, me saying English” which is why I’m ignoring it. Feel free to precise your thought if you believe it’s a crucial issue)