TrackBacks
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Are You Ready? • Êtes-Vous Prêt ?:
» The Second Human Right, To Defecate from Pave France
"The first human right is to eat, to be cared for, to receive an education and to have housing." That was Jack back in December in a story that went unremarked at Pave. (Hat Tip: Frogman) Jack here is confusing... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:01 PM
» The Second Human Right, To Defecate from Pave France
"The first human right is to eat, to be cared for, to receive an education and to have housing.". That was Jack back in December in a story that went unremarked at Pave. (Hat Tip: Frogman) Jack here is confusing... [Read More]
Tracked on March 31, 2004 12:18 PM
Comments
One can run an entire humor blog with jacques chirac 's quotes.
But the one about "eat and shut up", which he pronounced IN tunisia during a state visit probably must be carved in stone, and branded as official proof that France has abandoned any pretense to their own motto:
Libérté,Egalité,Fraternité.
When will we regain ,or be worthy of them again?
Posted by:
frenchfregoli |
March 24, 2004 08:19 PM
The "Eat and shut up line" reminds me of a story about Benito Mussolini. Apparently one day at the dinner table, his young son looked at him for a long time, then asked:
"Daddy, what is Fascism?" Il Duce's reply?
"Shut up and eat!"
Posted by:
SparcVark |
March 24, 2004 11:09 PM
I tend to agree with you DF that the right to ownership is the most important human right. There can be no meaningful claim to freedom unless a person can claim the results of their labors as their property. Without property rights your very life is not your own, nor is the food you eat, both are a gift of the State. Both can be removed by the State as it's whim dictates.
Posted by:
Sasquach |
March 25, 2004 12:08 AM
I'd place one right, or at least elevate one right to property above all others. That is the right to keep and bear arms. While most here in Canada think of it as an American invention, it is actually a British Common Law right. It is in my view the right from which all others spring. It is the first right that tyrants expunge. Sad that almost all the Commonwealth countries including my own have expunged this first liberty.
Posted by:
john |
March 25, 2004 02:29 AM
John - I agree with you that the right to keep and bear arms is an extremely important right, but I have to place it below the right to property. Without the first having the right to property, the right to keep and bear arms is moot, because those arms cannot be your property. Ultimately, without the right to own, the arms will belong to the state and merely be loaned to the individual.
And while I'm here, I offer a salute to John Locke, who first emphasized the right to property and upon whose ideas the US is founded.
Posted by:
Andrea |
March 25, 2004 07:09 PM
Great entry. Excellent points.
Posted by:
Mike |
March 26, 2004 01:58 AM
Jean-Jacques Rousseau posited in his "Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Men" that property was not a natural right but a debasement of civilization. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon pulled out the stops with his declaration: "All property is theft." And the contemporary French have not much tempered these political sentiments toward property, at least as regards everyone but France.
John Locke enumerated the basic "inalienable" rights of man -- and I believe in the correct procession -- as "life, liberty, and estate." Give the final term an aphaeretic trim, and there you have the French essential right: the state -- the right to be cared for. Jack gives this as the second term of the first manifold right invented during his Tunisia "influence-begging tour":
"The first human right is to eat, to be cared for, to receive an education and to have housing. From this point of view, we must remember that Tunisia is more advanced than many countries."
(More advanced? Hhmmm, no doubt Saddam's Iraq was fresh in mind. Jack has other human rights inventions up his sleeve, like the essential second human right, to defecate.)
Jack covering his man Ben Ali, dismissed Tunisian rights lawyer Radia Nasraoui, at the time in her second month of a hunger strike protesting Tunisia's shabby rights, thusly:
"We also have people in France who are staging hunger strikes, who have staged hunger strikes and who will doubtless stage hunger strikes in the future."
Huh? This is, well, just plain dopey. Back in France Jack clarified (?) his position:
"France has long been of the view that human rights are indivisible and universal."
Huh? In case you miss his point, Jack went on to say that any criticism of his person on this issue was "unjust". And ditto those stories about anti-Semitism in his France. If it ain't schmoozing, then it's all just "unjust".
Sadly there is nothing "inalienable" or "universal" about man's rights as Messrs. Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Saddam, Mugabe, Mao Zedong, and countless other single-person democracies have demonstrated. Then there are globe-trotting bootlicks like Messrs. Jack and Dom, who use human rights like toilet paper to pull off a little of the stink.
DGB
Posted by:
Damian Bennett |
March 27, 2004 02:04 AM
DF: Since you didn't have a comment box below your latest graphic, I just wanted to thank you for recognizing the good work of the Coalition.
As an active duty member of the U. S. Navy, I deeply appreciate it. :)
As a Catholic, I pray that Our Lady of Lourdes, Ste. Jeanne d'Arc, and St. Louis Grignon de Montfort will protect you all and bring the French people back to their Catholic faith. May God be with you!
Posted by:
someguy |
March 27, 2004 10:39 AM
The most important human right is the right to live (I wonder how you can own anything if you're dead...even your freedom).
No state, no society should be allowed to kill its citizens.
That's why death penalty isn't compatible with a democracy.
If the state can decide to kill you, then your "freedom" is a gift implicitely granted to you by the state.
Posted by:
lestat |
March 29, 2004 10:30 PM
M./Mll. Lestat,
Yours is an odd bit of reasoning.
What is the prohibitive correlation between democracy, a form of government, and the death penalty, a form of punishment?
Although, I’d have to agree no one has yet figured out how to take it with them beyond the beyond, you’ll have to sketch in a mighty elastic enthymeme to leap from “No state, no society should be allowed to kill its citizens” to “[the] death penalty isn't compatible with a democracy”.
Let’s examine this governing principle of your main proposition: “No state, no society should be allowed to kill its citizens”.
1. A policeman is an agent of a local government, an officer of its courts. Your principle then would prohibit said policeman, with opportunity, from using deadly force to kill a citizen husband holding at gunpoint his citizen wife with the unmistakable intent of killing her.
2. An air national guardsman is an agent of the state government. Charged with the protection of the local citizenry, your principle would prohibit said guardsman from shooting down a plane flown by a citizen crazy with the unmistakable intent of crashing into an occupied building and killing as many of his fellow citizens as possible.
3. A member of the armed forces is an agent of the national government. Your principle again would limit the exercise of protecting the duly elected government against renegade citizens leading a coup d'état to, what? Tongue-clucking?
Your principle is quite the boon to the lawless.
As I’ve written elsewhere, rights, in law, are neither inherent nor irrevocable. They are a class of entitlements, they proceed from the government. When one speaks of “inalienable” rights, one must look beyond government to a supernatural authority. You ask that a government stand guaranty for that which is beyond its claims. Well, that's a neat trick.
Further I would venture that rights are relational. If you were the sole being in the world, what rights would you enjoy? Life? Liberty? Estate? These rights all require society for context, which is to say, meaning. Their establishment and protection require a competent grantor, which is to say, an authority. M./Mll. Lestat, I doubt you are here to make the case for God. However I fully understand your trepidation at the thought of your rights in the safekeeping of the Fifth Republic. Bonne chance.
DGB
Posted by:
Damian Bennett |
March 30, 2004 06:36 AM
"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 - because living 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 individuals among which we live.
In other words, it means we shall not be deprived arbitrarily from our life, because we own it. 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 killed arbitrarily, 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 the always 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 any reason 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 anytime only 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 is a 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 was democracy and 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?
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 30, 2004 06:55 AM
DF:
"since there is an ultimate crime (...) then there has to be, naturally, an ultimate penalty "
Well, why should this ultimate penalty be death penalty? Which kind of justice can be infallible?
Posted by:
gl |
March 30, 2004 08:09 AM
M./Mll. gl,
Well, the correspondence between an ultimate crime and an ultimate penalty is proportionality.
Are you arguing that the possiblity of flawed due process puts any penalty in question? Well, then everyone's off the hook. That's murderers, D&Ds, and jaywalkers. This elevates "reasonable doubt" from a standard of evidence to the psychosis of scrupulosity.
Justice since time in memoriam has been represented as blind. Perfect justice awaits us in the world to come, for now we are enjoined to do the best we can.
Now here's a question for the DF's French correspondents:
The French weep copiously for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a convicted cop killer, upheld on numerous appeals, France advocated mightily for Ira Einhorn, but why no honorary French citizenships bestowed on Timothy McVeigh?
The truth is the anti-death penalty mob is selective about its principled opposition.
DGB
Posted by:
Damian Bennett |
March 30, 2004 09:34 AM
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?
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 30, 2004 10:00 AM
DF:
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
Probably because they think that the USA have greater moral principles, and that Americans care about the possibility that death penalty sometimes results in killing the wrong guy, which can obviously not be repaired. That makes death penalty more questionable than another penalty.
They do not expect a communist dictature like China to care about such a problem. That doesn't mean they support China. Just look at an organization like Amnesty International.
The truth is the anti-death penalty mob is selective about its principled opposition.
They focuse on the cases more convincing for their goal (= to put forward that death penalty is not "the best we can" in terms of justice).
That doesn't mean they approve death penalty for other murderers.
Posted by:
gl |
March 30, 2004 11:02 AM
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 concerned precisely 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 sure I understand what you mean actually.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 30, 2004 11:25 AM
M./Mll. gl,
I see the Frogman has beat me to the heavy-lifting. I'll confine myself to your answer to my question.
DGB: The truth is the anti-death penalty mob is selective about its principled opposition.
gl: They focuse on the cases more convincing for their goal (= to put forward that death penalty is not "the best we can" in terms of justice). That doesn't mean they approve death penalty for other murderers.
No, gl, it means they are selective about their principled opposition.
If you miss my point, "focusing on cases" is not principled opposition. It is predilection. Let's establish what we're talking about here. A principle is a settled rule which can be uniformly applied to all items in a category. A case is a particular and distinctive item in a category. OK, that ballparks the big concepts.
In principle every death sentence is a convincing case against the death penalty, otherwise any exceptions void the principle. Either the principle holds and all cases are worthy of your advocacy equally or you are arguing cases, your pet crusades.
Now just what sort of principled justice are you peddling that gives preference to Messrs. Mumia and Einhorn (and good Christ, how were their cases adjudged more "convincing"?) over Mr. McVeigh? Will Eric Robert Rudolph rate your consideration as a "convincing case"? Will he merit a thimbleful of Parisian tears?
Your response to the Frogman is equally fatuous. This is the same reasoning Hubert Vedrine used when condemning Israeli self-defense while excusing Pali terrorism -- the French expected more of Israel. Your expectations, whether high or low, neither heighten nor attenuate principle.
Perhaps there are individual cases to be argued against the death penalty. But stop trying to steal the moral high ground by pretending you've swanned in here to arguing some be-all principle.
DGB
Posted by:
Damian Bennett |
March 30, 2004 12:36 PM
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.
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 when it comes to decide if the death penalty is a punishment which can be applicated in this particular set of rules, you have to deal with a moral dilemma. Since you know that applying the death penalty will result in irreperable mistakes (which is not the case for other kinds of punishment), you have to decide which moral principle is more important:
1. according to proportionnality, one who killed shall be killed
2. a decision of justice cannot result into killing an innocent
then you can choose than the legitimacy of the death penalty is more important. IMHO, it needs more than proportionnality to be justified.
It's this reasoning which leads to the moratorium.
But it's not the reasoning of the death penalty opponents. You're right, Mr.Bennett, in principle every death sentence is a convincing case against the death penalty, otherwise any exceptions void the principle. That's what I intended to say when I wrote that focusing on cases doesn't mean they support death penalty for other criminals. Either MM. Mumia, McVeigh or Dutroux.
Posted by:
gl |
March 31, 2004 09:56 PM
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 irremissibly lost and 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 before the 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 dilemma you 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 sentence can be wrongly pronounced doesn’t make it wrong per se.
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
March 31, 2004 11:50 PM
Before answering the questions that DGB and DF asked me, I will restate my idea in a different way. Very similar to John's words:
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.
The interdiction of death penalty should be written in the constitution (in any state: France, USA, etc…)
Posted by:
lestat |
April 1, 2004 01:07 AM
I must admit that I’ve been imprecise. I do recognize the right to kill in case of self-defence (to which DGB examples refer)
I also admit DF’s proposition that if life is seen as a possession, then the right of possession is the most important right (that’s an interesting point).
Now, I don’t see why the “ultimate penalty” should be death penalty. For me it’s life in prison.
If your idea of proportionality is the basis of your support of death penalty, then it’s a surprising and fragile basis (doesn’t your “proportionality” occasionally mean “similarity” ?).
I don’t see why the justice should be linear : it even can’t be.
If someone commits 10 times your (not defined) “ultimate crime”, you can’t apply 10 times your ultimate penalty if the said penalty is death (or life in prison). So your linearity turns out to be “degressivity” to the worst law offenders. 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.
Second point: There’s a fault, a backdoor in your argumentation about fair trial DF:
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).
It also may make false proof (Mumia’s defenders pretend such a thing, but it’s another debate as you would say, right ?).
The conclusion of this point would be my previous post.
Death penalty means that the sentenced person is deprived of the possibility to enjoy any of the rights a human being can pretend to.
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.
**
Other questions:
MacVeight: Killing him was a mistake. That’s exactly what he expected: killing him strengthens his ideas. In his mind, and in the mind of people like him, he is a martyr.
I’m not really interested in the other cases.
For China and Korea: I don’t speak Chinese, neither Korean to say it in Korean. Does it mean I shouldn’t say it in English ?
Posted by:
lestat |
April 1, 2004 01:19 AM
“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 actually wrote. 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 a less serious one and 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 the ultimate penalty 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 the nature of the crime and the nature of 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 the rule 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 less voiceful 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 proportionally punished 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)
Posted by:
the dissident frogman |
April 1, 2004 07:51 AM
The notion that says, "We can't execute him, he wants to die, he'll just be a martyr" is close kin to the notion that says, "We can't fight with the terrorists, they want to die, we'll just inflame the Palestinian street."
Well, the street is already in flames. They want to kill us anyway. "Death to every house, death to every Jew, etc." is a daily refrain. The media tend not to notice this, however, until somebody like Mullah Saruman bites it. And leaving that aside, do you think that Mumia, by living and writing for the past 20 or so years, is NOT considered a martyr by Mike Farrell and a host of other celebrity Lefties? Is there not a "noble movement" [retch] to free him and other cop killers?
Instead, let the state introduce a few dozen of these revolting cretins to Ol' Sparky. It won't be making things any worse, and it stands a solid chance of making things better; at the least, it means that weepy, self-indulgent hippies will have to mourn their idols, instead of freeing them to prey on more innocents.
Posted by:
Nightfly |
April 1, 2004 06:16 PM
DF says: "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friend."
This sounds reasonable and makes perfect sense, the war in Irak indeed has its justification as a part of a broader attempt to get rid of terror. Unfortunately, US policy seems to follow different principles with respect to Israel, at least in the eyes of many Arabs. Wouldn't it make even more sense to support moderate palestinians (and their more legitimate claims) more effectively and take a tough stance against "terrorists", in the same way that moderate Iraqis should be supported against the more violent elements currently active in Iraq?
You also say: "America will have to take this road without [...] Europe's Socialists from both the Left and the Right [...]."
I would just like to add that many Europeans are at odds with the means the US is using to achieve its policy objectives, but these people may nevertheless fully agree with the underlying objective. The relevant question is the following: is the current US policy effective in achieving its objectives? I believe it is perfectly laudable to favour regimes in the middle east that are respectful of their citizens. But disagreement on how to achieve this goal should not lead to consider some entire countries as enemies almost as ugly as the Soviet Union or nazi Germany were. The differences are technical, not ideological (on this point).
Of course this reasoning does not apply to everyone in Europe (or elswhere). Regarding the French Presidency, the critique of using force from the mouth of someone who does not hesitate to send troops into areas with less media coverage (i.e. Africa) in order to "protect" its citizens leaves at least a bizarre impression.
Posted by:
Vindavent |
April 27, 2004 01:26 PM
