Explain to me why my attitude is wrong.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Shooting him in this case would be almost purely out of vengeance and has no place in a society that considers due process a right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's consider philosophically why due process exists...if I'm missing something please point it out but I see two key reasons:

a) To make sure the facts are straight
b) To make sure society's consensus values are applied and not those of any particular individual

Reason a) I agree with whole-heartedly and so I would only shoot the guy if the case was 100% clear cut and I could prove it. I wouldn't want people thinking I'm a random killer myself so I'd make sure everyone gets to see the videotape, transcripts of witness testimony etc. If there is any doubt as to what the true facts are, then I'd be in favor of due process myself.

Reason b), however, I reject with all my heart because of the heavy liberal slant to the judicial system. If the judge and jury were made up only of the top 25% most right-wing segment of the population I'd gladly accept their verdict. Sadly, though, there are so many liberals who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than those of honest businessmen, that I cannot accept a due process in which such people are in power.

If you are in favor of due process, I'm assuming it's because of a combination of a) and b) above. In the case of b), are you saying you agree with society's consensus values, or at least are willing to compromise, or are you just pointing out the fact that the system forces us to accept them whether we like them or not?


[ QUOTE ]
And there's no mention of this robber "beating the rap".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but there is mention of him getting away which means there is a chance he will escape.

I suppose a lot depends on how big the chance is and what the expected rap will be. In my value system it would have to be 100% and either life imprisonment or execution. If someone threatens my life and I can prove it, I believe I have the right to a 100% guarantee that that person can never again threaten or cause harm to me or my family. Under the current system the only way to achieve that is to kill him. If there were another way, I'd be all for it.

I assume the real-world values of roughly 80% and a few years' imprisonment would be acceptable in your value system. Just wondering, though, what if they were lower? What if it were only 20% and the expected rap were only 1 year of community service? What would your position be then? If you are still in favor of letting him go, how low would the probability have to be before you took matters into your own hands?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
It looks like momst of the gun toters would love this opportunity to show how manly they are by shooting a fleeing man.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with showing manliness and everything to do with having zero tolerance for having to live in a society where behavior like that is endorsed or accepted. If you give him your money and do nothing you are telling him he did a good thing by robbing you and that he should do it again. If you kill him then it tells others who might want to try the same thing that it might not be such a good idea.

[InchoateHand]

Yes, violence is a very powerful deterrence. I mean, the death penalty reduces murder, and vigilante justice decreases crime! Its proven by science...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's consider philosophically why due process exists...if I'm missing something please point it out but I see two key reasons:

a) To make sure the facts are straight
b) To make sure society's consensus values are applied and not those of any particular individual

[/ QUOTE ]
In addition to these, here are a few more reasons/rights you receive under due process (from http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html):
# Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
# Right to be present at the trial
# Right to an impartial jury
# Right to be heard in one's own defense
# Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior

[ QUOTE ]
Reason a) I agree with whole-heartedly and so I would only shoot the guy if the case was 100% clear cut and I could prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's your first problem. You can't know with 100% certainty whether a case is clear cut AND you can prove it in the moments before shooting the robber. But it's not for you to decide anyway. That's why the victims of crimes aren't the ones in the jury box.

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't want people thinking I'm a random killer myself so I'd make sure everyone gets to see the videotape, transcripts of witness testimony etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
These things all take place after the crime has been committed, namely at trial. You are circumventing this whole process when you decide that YOU will decide what the law and punishment should be for a particular crime is.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is any doubt as to what the true facts are, then I'd be in favor of due process myself.

[/ QUOTE ]
What good is finding out if there was any doubt when you've already shot the robbber? This is supposed to happen at trial, not made as snap decision by someone who has just been robbed.

[ QUOTE ]
Reason b), however, I reject with all my heart because of the heavy liberal slant to the judicial system.

[/ QUOTE ]
Now you're getting ridiculous. This is a terrible argument in favor of vigilantism.

[ QUOTE ]
Sadly, though, there are so many liberals who are more concerned with the rights of criminals than those of honest businessmen, that I cannot accept a due process in which such people are in power.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't get to choose who will get rights and when. We all have rights all of the time.

But let's go ahead and weigh the rights of both parties involved. First the businessman has a right to not be robbed or threatened. He also has a right to self-defense while his life is in danger. But we already know that the businessman's life is no longer in danger. Now the criminal also has rights, like the right to a fair trial by an impartial jury, a lawyer, and the right to not be unjustly killed. While he could have been killed during the commission of his crime and I would have no problem, he cannot be killed while he's running away.

Now it seems to me we can let the businessman shoot the robber and therefor violate many of the criminals rights or we can enforce laws that prevent the businessman from shooting. Either way, the businessman's rights have still been violated, but in the first case, the robber's more fundamental rights have been violated. We can sort out the damage if the businessman doesn't kill the robber, but we can't do much if he does.

[ QUOTE ]
No, but there is mention of him getting away which means there is a chance he will escape.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. That's an argument for a better police force, not an argument for killing any criminal for any crime onsight.

[ QUOTE ]
In my value system it would have to be 100% and either life imprisonment or execution. If someone threatens my life and I can prove it, I believe I have the right to a 100% guarantee that that person can never again threaten or cause harm to me or my family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again with the proving. Who are you proving this to? It's a farce if the other guy is not allowed to present his side, and he's not since you killed him. That's not justice.

But there is this concept of punishment fitting the crime that is sorta common here in the U.S. It means we don't kill people for jaywalking and speeding. In this case, the punishment of execution does not fit with the crime of robbery.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume the real-world values of roughly 80% and a few years' imprisonment would be acceptable in your value system. Just wondering, though, what if they were lower? What if it were only 20% and the expected rap were only 1 year of community service? What would your position be then? If you are still in favor of letting him go, how low would the probability have to be before you took matters into your own hands?

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter what the probability is. You do not have the right to dispense "justice" at your pleasure. You have a right to self-defense while your life is in danger, but you do not have the right to vigilantism.

I hope that if you are unfortunate to ever be robbed and you do shoot the criminal as he's running away, that you're locked up for as long as they can legally do so. Your idea of justice is warped and sick.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with showing manliness and everything to do with having zero tolerance for having to live in a society where behavior like that is endorsed or accepted.

[/ QUOTE ]
NO ONE is arguing that such behavior should be endorsed or accepted. What we are arguing is that you do not have the right to become judge, jury, and executioner.

[ QUOTE ]
If you give him your money and do nothing you are telling him he did a good thing by robbing you and that he should do it again.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what the criminal justice system is for.

[ QUOTE ]
If you kill him then it tells others who might want to try the same thing that it might not be such a good idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Or maybe the next time your robbed, you'll be shot first without warning.

[Darryl_P]

Thank you Mr. State Representative for explaining how the system works in the USA. I know that. Duh.

I was hoping for a philosophical discussion about a hypothetical situation reflecting your personal values, not just an aping of the official answers which are perfectly predictable and highly tedious.

I'm smart enough to know how the liberal-infested judicial system works so I'm afraid I'll have to disappoint you by not doing anything to get myself locked up anytime soon. In the meantime I'd worry about managing the national debt if I were you, because that and the house of cards built upon it is a favorite to be the demise of your so highly prized society.

[InchoateHand]

Thats right, the liberal infested judiciary! They are sick, I tell you, sick! The most consistently conservative element of the American political process is horribly stricken with a case of liberals! Quick, run to...oh wait...nevermind.

You aren't very bright, are you?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't very bright, are you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm afraid it is you who is not very bright because you think that a politician with an (R) beside his name isn't a liberal. I've got news for you...your whole government is liberal, including the republi-dummies. True conservatism is something you will only experience after your economy collapses and a broad-scale war erupts. When it happens you'll be scratching your head thinking "hmmm...why are people so evil?" while I'll just be witnessing Darwinian nature unfolding as it should.