President Tsai's administration carries out first death penalty

Can’t say this man deserves to live but i still don’t feel comfortable giving the state the right to carry out capital punishment.

You mean because only the individual should have that right? :ponder:

2 Likes

No. I didn’t say that nor did I say anything that anyone would reasonably put my point as that.

Then what is your point? Is the problem the state having the right to kill or simply this state having the right to kill?

I’m neither for nor against btw, but I’m interested in the arguments used on both sides.

Based on the story he’s a scumbag and deserved it. Getting shot for the death penalty is a lot cleaner and less painful than how he killed his victims

2 Likes

I don’t feel comfortable with giving the state the right to carry it out.

Is there anyone or anything that should have the right, then?

If not, why not just say no-one should have the right?

The state shouldn’t have the right… sounds libertarian.
No-one should have the right… sounds statist.

It’s impossible for individuals to carry out capital punishment. If an individual did it it would be murder.

If we define murder as an illegal act of killing, then killing is not murder if you have the right to do it.

Capital punishment is different because it requires a legal trial first. The trial may be a complete sham, but it will still need to be authorized by the state. Individuals can’t do this.

Wow, that is a horrific and tragic story. Neither an execution nor a lock up and throw away the key makes it less so. So there is basically no way out.

It must be very difficult for the remaining family members either way.

Capital punishment is different because it requires a legal trial first. The trial may be a complete sham, but it will still need to be authorized by the individual.

If the individual is the state (aka absolute monarchy), there’s no paradox in that.

It also works if you take certain libertarian principles far enough (the castle doctrine and so on).

Replace individual with community, and you have a phenomenon that has been perfectly normal (though not necessarily legal according to the state) in many parts of the world at many times in history, and arguably still today.

The reality is that in modern societies we’ve assigned the right and responsibility to administer civil and criminal punishments to the state. Isn’t it normal to discuss the extent of those duties? That seems to be the context of referring to the state here.

2 Likes

yyy does have an unfortunate habit of reading into statements things that aren’t there. It’s pretty obvious to me that ‘the State should not have this right’ derives from the fact that individuals don’t have that right, not least because an agent of the State - an individual - must push the button or pull the trigger.

The fact that this is all made right with some legal mumbo-jumbo and some signatures on paper does not alter the fundamental reality of one person taking away another person’s life.

Is it wrong to kill murderers? Whole different question, and you could have that discussion without even mentioning the word ‘State’.

Can’t help wondering what the background story was here. I was just reading an autobiography of a cop who gave his entire life to the job and ended up cracking up under the strain of witnessing endless violence, death, and misery. He basically went on a rampage (although apparently nobody was seriously hurt), ended up jailed and eventually got treatment, but he has some interesting points to make about the nature of PTSD.

Not trying to make excuses for the guy in the news article (he sounds like a genuine psycho) but I wonder how many of these situations could have been nipped in the bud, before someone got killed, but were not?

1 Like

The only problem I see is that his death was too quick and painless.

The only thing at stake really is the well being of the remaining family, (the other daughter in particular) and public safety. Killing him slowly does not serve either of these. As for killing him at all, you could argue about whether it really serves either. Id imagine myself that the best interest of a child in that kind of position would be to believe that the parent was mentally ill, rather than evil or bad.

1 Like

I’m generally against the death penalty based on lack of real, beyond a faction of a doubt, proof. Video evidence and such proving without any possible argument of a sick crim like murder, I can accept. Much like the mrt guy, the guy who cut through the little girls neck etc, well mental or not just get rid of them. If there is real proof and admit of guilt etc, what is the real problem? I get the issue of people getting wrongly accused, and Taiwan is corrupt as F*ck, so there is risk, but Yehser cases of out in public, recorded type murders I think are well justified. Maybe a better assisted suicide program for those sick guys to off themselves without hurting others. That would be super liberal and pro choice!

2 Likes

Like this?

I suppose…But it’s debatable if slitting ones abdomen is the most humane way to off a person. I wouldn’t wish that on a rat, never mind a human.

But hey, pro choice! Though if it’s government assisted it would logically need to follow their protocol. Bullets and chemicals seem like good options.

In all seriousness though, nanny states need to learn that sometimes a person with mental illness are bad. I wouldn’t go with evil cause that goes into the dumb religion argument. But people that murder for nobpogical reason (defense) are mentally ill and bad. Why keep them around (in those extreme circumstances)? There are some crimes that should be a common knowledge and if one phucks that up, pay the price. Indeed we need courts trials etc for fairness, just speaking of the so obvious there is no possible way to deny it happened. Eg. MRT guy. That’s pretty much!Open and shut, just get it over with, he’s not worth the time or the money. Only Canada would try and reprogram that ass.

umm … I wasn’t serious :slight_smile:

I was just pointing out that the idea isn’t novel.

It has some merit. People sentenced to life with no chance of parole could, I suppose, be offered the choice of suicide by some humane means. I’ve never understood the idea that people who choose to hang themselves in the holding cell before trial have “escaped justice”. Surely they’ve simply decided on their own form of justice? So what’s the problem?

The problem with assisted suicide is that you would then be compelled to offer the same thing to (for example) the terminally-ill. Otherwise, you’d end up with a platoon of euthanasia supporters saying it’s not fair.