Ya I know 
Maybe it should be available. The difference I see with that is the criminals are facing justice, so it’s on the house. Terminally I’ll should py for the service as it’s a choice. But I realise that’s while new can of worms. By choice though the government really sets itself up for lawsuits. Through justice, it’s pretty clean and easy decision.
So the dude above, if really recorded and proven, good job Tsai and good riddance garbage.
The child deserves to know the truth. I think he deserved this ending and this will make sure he can not hurt his remaining daughter utter scumbag.
Yea, not saying that he didn’t deserve that, just saying that what he deserves might be besides the point. Anyway I don’t know the details of the case and I’m not a child psychologist. Its a horrific story one way or the other, no doubt about that.
I’m not saying some people don’t deserve a slow and painful death. Just that I’m not sure we should allow the state to have the power to carry out capital punishment. I’m not 100% sold it deters crime either if that’s the argument for it.
Slow and painful is just a dumb thing people say when they’re emotional. Kill them fast and painless if at all.
Perhaps it’s doesn’t deter crime. I personally feel, again in the cases of beyond doubt, it’s more of a financial burden and we don’t need to cradle epicly horrible people. If they are guilty as all hell, have no chance of freedom outside a cell, why maintain the life? It seems kind of sick to do so, like farming chickens inside plastic tube fed bags for meat. At least the chickens provided protein for another creature after their life sentence. It’s not very logical, and arguably not very moral to imprison and by proxy torture a person indefinitely for such things.
I don’t buy the deters crime thing either. Generally, these people are truly disturbed and logical, rational thought processes were long gone by the time they try decapitating toddlers on the street…So why nanny that situation. He was mentally ill, sure. Everyone can agree, so why keep him? Help should be given prior to this stuff, once they do it it cannot be undone with bleeding hearts. Quick, painless and without a bunch of mistakes. Fair trial for sure, but if it’s recorded clearly and admission of guilt, 1 bullet doesn’t cost much. If you take a more cold stance, the family of those murdered py taxes and thus are paying to enable these people…That’s a bit twisted.
I don’t consider it obvious. If you use the Wild West as the philosophical starting point – and isn’t that the idea behind “small government”? – then the state should not have the right to do x does not mean no-one should have the right to do x.
Examples:
When it comes to capital punishment, especially if it’s an American saying it (sorry to discriminate), you need to consider the cultural, historical, and legal context of the actual Wild West, lynch mobs, stand your ground, and so on.
So again, if you really believe no-one should have the right to do x, why not say it?
The death penalty requires state competence on a level that is simply unachievable. Case in point:
It’s only non-obvious because you’ve re-written Andrew’s statement in a generic formulation.
There are only four possible situations here (I’m using ‘kill’ as shorthand for ‘carry out executions as punishment for criminal activity’):
If someone argues that ‘the State cannot kill’ then you’ve narrowed it down to 1 and 3. Since 3 is an outlier scenario, the speaker is obviously talking about situation 1, especially since all modern governments are (in theory) ‘of the people, by the people,for the people’ - in other words, the behaviour of government is a true reflection of the morals of the electorate.
Of course the individual can kill, in self defense. “Ah but that’s not execution for criminal behavior…” It’s not the same formal process, but it is a kind of trial that happens very quickly in the individual’s mind: “Should I kill this person?” Same thing if the state officially doesn’t have capital punishment but does allow police etc. to kill in self defense.
One may argue that the state is also acting in self-defense when it conducts an execution. Is letting the defendant live in prison not a feasible alternative? It may or may not be, depending on the details. (Maybe the defendant is a revolutionary leader who, if not executed, will damage or even overthrow the state from behind bars or in exile, or maybe the state can’t afford to feed all of its prisoners…)
Now compare “stand your ground”. Is retreating to a safe location not a feasible alternative? It may or may not be, depending on the details, but the authors of the law thought it’s unreasonable to require the individual to yield ground, even temporarily, just to avoid conflict, so they declared, more or less, that the individual has no such duty.
I realise that. Are we still talking about the scenario 3 where the State has more restrictions placed upon its behaviour than the individual? If so you still haven’t described what that looks like in practice or if such a society could even theoretically exist (given that Governments, generally speaking, do whatever they like, whereas the people do as they’re told).
All of your illustrations suggest exactly what I’ve said: where the individual has a right to kill in self-defence (eg., most US states) then the State (=the Police) have the same right. Where that right is much diminished (eg., Europe, where one is only permitted to use ‘reasonable force’) then the rights of the State are diminished also.
The US exists in reality, not just in theory. Whether stand your ground is really self defense is debatable, just as whether executing prisoners is self defense (for the existence of the state) is debatable. There’s a case to be made on the state side or the individual side that stretching the definition of self defense that wide opens the door to error and abuse.
Would you deny there are large numbers of individuals in some countries who prefer vigilantism to the state system?
The point being, when I hear complaints that the state shouldn’t x, I don’t take that as being at all the same thing as no-one should x.
So you’re saying the US State apparatus has fewer rights to self-defense than the individual? Sorry, I don’t see that either in practice or in law. I don’t see what stand-your-ground even has to do with it. Don’t State agents use the exact same law to defend themselves?
Yes. Scenario 4, but that’s because even though the State has rights/duties which are the same as or greater than the individual (on paper) it is too weak to carry them out. The people are not duty bound to carry out executions; they do it illegally, and in theory should be punished for it. You seem to have this argument entirely backwards.
In countries where vigilante justice is the norm, it happens because the law has failed, not because the law says it should be so. I can’t think of any country where mob justice is approved of by the State (except, I suppose, with a nod and a wink).
(I didn’t mean to say the US fits your number 3, just that what I’m talking about is real.)
Scenario 4, but that’s because even though the State has rights/duties which are the same as or greater than the individual (on paper) it is too weak to carry them out.
Too weak or just not willing? The US could do all kinds of things it doesn’t do, if it wanted to do them.
Why does stand your ground exist there (officially) in a way it doesn’t in various other countries (officially)? I think laws like that tend to appeal to libertarians (not necessarily capital L), the same people who tend to complain that the state has too much power (both de jure and de facto).
The people are not duty bound to carry out executions; they do it illegally, and in theory should be punished for it. You seem to have this argument entirely backwards.
You’re not duty bound to stand your ground (in most cases), though your peers might say otherwise. Whether it’s legal depends on the jurisdiction and the details of the case.
Ps. I confess I was watching TV while typing the past few posts, so my argument is probably not very well made. (Noticing your frequent edits didn’t help! 
) I do stand by my original point though. 
So where is it then? Give me an example.
I accept that in some places the State has failed and the People step in. That’s not the same as saying that there are places where the State has officially abrogated its monopoly over legitimate force and hands it over to the citizenry. And to go back to the original assertion, I don’t think anyone in their right mind would argue for that as a desirable state of affairs.
Stand your ground is real, in the US and (other versions) in some other countries. It’s not the state throwing up its arms and saying hey people, do your own damn policing!, but it is a way of granting the individual more authority than he would otherwise have, including the authority to use deadly force when it isn’t actually necessary for the immediate preservation of the individual’s life.
So, if OP is not comfortable giving the state that authority, is he comfortable with stand your ground as it currently exists in the US?
Nevertheless, the State retains the same or greater authority, as indicated by numerous police shootings, justified or otherwise.
An official Stand-your-ground policy would make zero sense in the context of a less violent State. It simply couldn’t happen. An armed populace with a non-armed police force is only likely in a country that can’t afford to arm and train its police. Liberia, say.
The timing of the execution is interesting. Having been implemented by a party that is generally seen as leaning towards abolition of the death penalty, and that avoided implementing it so far for two years.
Suddenly, a couple of months before the municipal elections, a death warrant is signed.
Maybe if they whip him first the kmt would whine less?
What is Taiwan’s law on the above stand your ground type situation you guys are discussing? If you kill a guy killing you or someone else. let’s say this guy above got killed by someone while knifing his ex, where does the gov stand on that?
That kind of scenario is different from what I was talking about, but in that case I suppose it would be a “righteous indignation” homicide (as in the Criminal Code), with a penalty potentially as low as zero.