On 28 Jul 2002 at 17:46, Walpurgis wrote:
>
> [Lucifer]
> Is the wrongful death of an innocent justified if two or more are saved?
>
> Were people to know that an innocent could be tried and imprisoned or
executed - for whatever reason - we would live in a more fearful society
where justice became perceived as expediency. No trial would be
trusted
and the utilitarian benefits lost. This would be why:
>
> [Lucifer]
> "cold utiliarian equations are much better for developing policy than
> emotional responses"
>
> is probably not be the case.
>
People would live in far greater fear were the vicious social predators
among us not civilly restrained from publicly indulging in their savage
pursuits.
>
> [Lucifer]
> How about putting them in cryonic suspension?
>
> Sounds like the premise of a really bad sci-fi. Then again, if Stallone
spend 1hr 30 mins blowing paedophile serial killers to pieces, you might
be onto a hit.
>
> [Joe]
> Forever? Then why not just execute them?
>
> Are you so willing to give your government the right of life and death
over the citizenry (and yourself)? Should government have this ultimate
power? Could it sterilise you too? Conscript you into its army? - these
amount to similar ends (end/control of life) and all come from the same
rationale.
>
Yes, governments should have the power to execute sociopaths who
endanger a country's citizenry. They should also have the power of
conscription in wartime. As a military veteran, I understand that the
rights and freedoms we enjoy in this nation are paid for with a price of
responsibilities and obligations, and penalties if these are shirked and
transgressed. If our country were to be lost to an undemocratic,
totalitarian adversary because a volunteer military were insufficient, all,
including those able yet unwilling to fight, would suffer.
As for sterilization, one might be able to make such a case for certain
hereditary maladies (for instance, Huntingdon's Chorea), but I am
hopeful that our growing genetic understanding will allow us to engineer
viruses that will literally infect such individuals with genetic and
reproductive health by repairing the gene sequence abnormalities
responsible. I also do not think it is a good idea for AIDS sufferers to
attempt to reproduce, due to the high probability of their passing on the
virus to partners and offspring.
>
> [Joe]
> When people raise objections to both execution and incarceration,
> freedom and the subsequent murders that would facilitate seems to be
> the only alternative available to them.
>
> Surveillance is an alternative, as written in the seperate thread.
>
And as I answered, it is an inadequate one (at least the radio collar is)
allowing for only a posteriori determination of guilt, not prevention of
violent criminality. Do we really have either the exorbitant funds or the
personnel to allow murderers and rapist to walk unrestrained among us,
each accompanied by a law inforcement official, for their natural
lifetimes? And how about the dangers to these officers (and the
dangers to citizens at large are also not eliminated by such a practice)?
>
> Walpurgis
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by Walpurgis to the Virus 2002 board on Church of Virus BBS.
> <http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=51;action=display;threadid=25812>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Sep 22 2002 - 05:06:16 MDT