‘Justice is death’ for alleged shooter in Batman rampage...

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, I'm not retracting what I said, because he does this even for (apparently) complete strangers. You might notice sometime that I basically never do this with Agent Sorchus, and he's both my brother and my roommate. It irks me anytime someone acts like they know so precisely what people are thinking just because they have similar thoughts or ideas.

Having social dealings with both of them, I like to think of it as someone acting as a skilled interpreter, rather than speaking for the other person.

"Simon, can you translate that to 'Normal Person' for me?"

That said, I can see her broad point. I am not sure she is correct in this particular (murder, even terrorist murder, I dont think qualifies as being a thing the state must use to demonstrate its power). What do I mean by this?

Despite my objection to the death penalty as a general rule, I can see an argument that might persuade me... but it can never be applied to crimes against persons. Keep in mind, I am not endorsing this position. I am merely elaborating on a possibility that could be argued to me, that might have the proverbial chops to overcome my resistance to the death penalty.

Murder is a crime against persons. A murderer kills someone and harms their family. They might even kill a lot of people, either over time or all at once. However, the actions of a murderer do not strike at the core of what permits a society to exist.

But then, there are other things. Things that subvert and corrupt the very mechanisms necessary for the functioning of society. Like certain types of treason. Not "I am going to sell the design for our latest submarine impeller" treason, but the "I am a US congressman who just so happens to also be an SS intel asset, who attempts to direct policy and legislation such that a hostile foreign power wins the war" rancid treason. The willful and knowing subversion and corruption of our societal institutions for private interest (specifically in cases where the damage is bad enough to cause calamity. I am not talking about bribing your way out of a traffic ticket here, but doing things like throwing a meth orgy for EPA regulators so they permit you to dump toxic waste in a drinking water reservoir, or bribing FDA officials to approve for use a drug that is ineffective and dangerous at treating a horrific disease, while denying approval to a superior competitor), or the willful and knowing subversion and corruption of said institutions on willful behalf of a hostile foreign or domestic power or organization.

In cases like that, where the crime is against not individuals, but society itself, I can see an argument that could be made for the Death Penalty as Spectacle Demonstration of State Power and Authority. To put another way, the Mr. Mordens of our society should be treated as Vir Cotto wishes.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I wouldn't dispute the possibility, Aly, that my definition of the kind of crimes being discussed needs to be widened in some places and narrowed in others.

[Simon_Jester]

Which brings us back to my discussion of the French Revolution and Madame Guillotine- the argument being that the French nobility was exactly what was holding back French society, and that the new revolutionary culture was well rid of them.

Of course, that was the prototype for every bloody purge in history, so it's wise to tread carefully at this point...

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I think gross crimes against society in the way Aly describes in the context of the existing order are clearly differentiatable from revolutionary "crimes" of a class of individuals.

[Simon_Jester]

They are, but in the kind of social environment where it becomes possible to punish people like lobbyists, who have done terrible things but haven't actually killed anyone...

...Let's just say that it's very easy for a political movement that's already decided to shoot all the pesticide lobbyists to cross the line.

[Stark]

You mean like when people start equating the good of 'society' with the good of the 'state' and things like that?

Cause I think some people are WAY past that. At least we know they're 'joking, obviously'.

[Formless]

FYI, guys, I was going to reply to Simon the other day, but literally the minute after I posted that is when the board's connectivity crashed. Right now, though, I just don't have time to respond to the half dozen things that you guys have posted in response because I've got a certain... seasonal celebration to prepare for. Plus a new kitten. These things are related.

So I might not get back to you guys for the next few days (possibly weeks), depending on whether my schedule permits it. If I respond at all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You mean like when people start equating the good of 'society' with the good of the 'state' and things like that?

Cause I think some people are WAY past that. At least we know they're 'joking, obviously'.

I am not sure precisely what you mean, but I will take a crack at one possibility. Let me know if I am off.

Sometimes "society" is extensionally equivalent to the "state". Sometimes it is not. It depends on the nature of the offense and how much the interests of society are tied up in the state apparatus.

[Simon_Jester]

You mean like when people start equating the good of 'society' with the good of the 'state' and things like that?

Cause I think some people are WAY past that. At least we know they're 'joking, obviously'.

Gee, if the good of society is not the good of the state, then you're doing this whole "state" thing wrong.

As a practical matter, everybody "does it wrong" for that definition, because you'd have to achieve a perfect and unstable state of the government to avoid doing it wrong.


So yes. State power to kill people for being "bad" is going to get abused almost inevitably. What makes me oppose Alyrium's described idea of executing people for 'gross crimes against society' is less the idea that those individuals' rights are being violated. It's more the idea that 'crimes against society' are an ill-defined category, and it sets incredibly bad precedent to execute people for a vaguely defined crime.

Even if we can all agree that what they did is horrendous, the next person to commit a 'crime against society' will almost certainly have done something different, and the next after that likewise. And since defining "fabric of society" in legal terms is almost impossible, defining "crime against the fabric of society" is equally impossible.

I'm sympathetic, but even Alyrium cast this idea in terms of "I'm not endorsing this," and I agree.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even if we can all agree that what they did is horrendous, the next person to commit a 'crime against society' will almost certainly have done something different, and the next after that likewise. And since defining "fabric of society" in legal terms is almost impossible, defining "crime against the fabric of society" is equally impossible.

I'm sympathetic, but even Alyrium cast this idea in terms of "I'm not endorsing this," and I agree.

Indeed. It may or may not have the philosophical chops to convince me that such a proposal would be just and ethical. However, it breaks down in application when applied within a legal context. There cannot be any rigid and fixed definitions, and in a system where, by necessity, those making the decisions about--for example--whether or not to pursue a prosecution on that basis, are those with an interest in maintaining their own personal power in the first place. The office of the prosecutor or those higher up then them on the proverbial food chain would themselves be guilty of the very thing they prosecute, because I find it hard to think of anything worse than using the criminal justice system for an individual's private interest under the terms outlined above.