Geoffrey_Britain � 2 days ago

"Let�s choose not to kill when we don�t have to."

Charles C. W. Cooke

Has there ever been more harm and confusion generated by a mistranslation? The
original Hebrew translation of the 'Commandment' is NOT "thou shalt not kill" the
correct translation is, "thou shalt not murder".

The death penalty is a societal response, to a unilateral action by the offender.

Essentially only imposed for 1st degree murder, �murder in the first� is
recognition of a unilateral action taken by the perpetrator, that has permanently
denied the victim's "unalienable right to life".

In doing so, by their own actions, the offender has declared the consequence.
In acting unilaterally, the perpetrator has forfeited their own right to life by
demonstrating through their actions, that they do not recognize other people's
right to life. Actions have consequences, for every action there is a proportional
reaction. Unilaterally denying someone else's 'right to life' establishes the
consequence; forfeiture of the perpetrator's right to life.

We cannot logically declare a right for ourselves that is denied to others. Nor can
society continue to extend a right to someone who has demonstrably rejected that
right. They have violated the social contract in the most fundamental way possible.

That is what the perpetrator has done. In such a case, all society is doing is
acting with respect to the operative principle with which the perpetrator has
declared its allegiance. But in decrying the death penalty, advocates support
extending a right to a perpetrator, that the perpetrator has denied to their
victim.

Injustice hinges upon dis-proportionality. In unilaterally denying their victim's

right to life, the perpetrator consequentially forfeits their own right to life
and, the ONLY proportional societal response is the death penalty. Any other
response disrespects the victim(s). Both the murdered individual(s) victimized and
the 'living victims' that the perpetrator's murder has created.

A society that renounces the death penalty makes a mockery of society's assurance
to its members that the individual has an "unalienable right to life" because it
implicitly declares that, "you have that right, unless... someone decides you don't
have that right.

JD Dave E. � 2 days ago

The atheist necessarily believes that morality is subjective, for he rejects the
existence of authority above man. Thus he has the problem of dealing with the fact
that men disagree.

Some reconcile this by saying that the majority should rule absolutely. Others
argue that all truth is subjective and relative, and so what is moral for one is
immoral for another.

Neither reconciliation functions.

The "will of the majority" is never perfectly known and can change with the wind
(and be manipulated). Subjectivity is worse - it allows me to kill anyone , anytime
provided I first declare that personally find it acceptable, and the only check
against me is that someone else might respond in kind. It is the ultimate anarchy,
but quickly becomes the ultimate tyranny when people group themselves in order to
be strong enough to impose their moralities on others.
While the concept of an authority above and beyond men also has problems
(specifically, how to determine it), it is a superior alternative. Even among the
non-Christian, respect for this concept exists in the form of respect for the
authority known as the Constitution.

Unfortunately, atheists in particular find that their worldview lends itself to

undermining this authority. Constantly.

TMRYAx2 � 2 days ago

I�ve got a problem with this statement from the article: �by and large, we execute
people in the United States by choice and not by necessity: as retribution, or as
an example to others (which we call �deterrence�)�

---

I�ve now seen 2 articles on National Review explaining �deterrence� as causing harm
to one person �as an example� in order to convince others not to commit a specific
act. But that is not how �deterrence� works.

The purpose of deterrence is to get people to not do certain acts. It does not
require the punishment of one �as an example� to others.

Deterrence only works by explaining beforehand the punishment associated with

certain actions and then following through with the threatened punishment for the
certain actions when committed.

This is the whole purpose of legally articulated punishments for specific acts � to
deter those specific actions that society has deemed
criminal.

The threat of a ticket deters us from breaking traffic laws. If there was no threat
of a ticket, there would be no way to enforce those laws as
there would be no consequences for breaking them.

Obamacare deters us from NOT buying insurance with a tax penalty.

� If there was no penalty there would be no deterrence, and, consequently, if the
penalty is not enforced then neither is the law.

We see parents on those �Nanny� shows who cannot control their kids. Almost every
time the reason is simple � the parents don�t follow through with the punishments
they�ve threatened. So the punishments don�t act as a deterrent to bad behavior
because the children have learned that there are no consequences forthcoming.

The parent doesn�t need to punish one kid to �show� another what will happen in
order to create a deterrent. All the parent needs to do is first threaten a
particular punishment for a certain act and then follow through on that threat when
the specific act is committed.

This is the same with law.

There is only one way to stop all crime � constant surveillance

and control of all people. -But that would not be a free society.

In a free society the best we can do is try to get people to choose to not commit
the crime in the first place. Hence the need for articulated consequences for
specific criminal actions, and the necessity to follow through with those
threatened consequences when those actions are committed - deterrence.

All crimes have delineated consequences � as they must. Those

consequences vary from small to large fines, reparation to those harmed, short
to long periods of incarceration, etc. Death is the greatest of consequence �
thus the greatest of punishments � thus the greatest deterrence. It is held as
punishment for only the most heinous of crimes. If death is not enough to get
people to stop committing these crimes then what is?

The whole point of proscribing punishments for breaking the

law is to act as a deterrent to breaking the law. When we don�t follow through
on those articulated punishments, it is the law that is weakened.

We all know that speeding will get you a ticket. But many of
us have been busted for speeding without getting a ticket � leading us to the
conclusion that there is not necessarily any punishment for breaking speed limit
laws. Thus when we do finally get a ticket for speeding � it is not us, the
speeder, who earned the ticket by breaking the law � but rather the cop, who is
an a*hole for �giving� us the ticket when he didn�t have to.

By not following through with the articulated consequences for specific actions �
we lessen the apparent criminality of those actions and instead demean the law
which leads to more criminal actions.

Without the threat of consequences for criminal actions there can be no law and no
order.

We do not execute people �as an example to others (which we call �deterrence�)�.�

As with all law, we first articulate what the possible punishment will be and then
follow through with the punishment when the crime is committed. We do not execute
people as 'examples' but as punishment for the heinous crimes they committed � a
punishment they were already aware of and
chose to disregard - in order to preserve law and order.

Without both the threat of punishment for criminal acts and the following through
on those threats � there is no law or order.

Joe Griffioen � 2 days ago

The author begins with liberal assumptions, and using liberal logic, reaches a
liberal conclusion. The purpose of the death penalty isn't self-defense,
deterrance, or any other utilitarian justification. The purpose is Justice. Justice
is only an understandable concept in the context of absolute truth. Our legal
system is no longer about justice; it's only about reconciling competing interests.
5 � Reply�Share �
Avatar
DavidH Joe Griffioen � 2 days ago
If justice is only understandable in the context of absolute truth, then it doesn't
appear to be a very human concept, and perhaps we should let God take care of it.
� Reply�Share �
Avatar
Joe Griffioen DavidH � 2 days ago
Without absolute truth, there is no absolute standard of morality. If there is no
absolute standard of morality, there is no way to define justice. Randomly evolved
creature have no right or wrong, there is only that which benefits or harms the
creature. Randomly evolved creatures can't be evil; they can only act in ways
detrimental to the group. If you start with that as the world-view, then
"punishment" is irrational. Society's concerns are only to protect itself and, if
possible, to rehabilitate the malfunctioning being. In that context, this column
makes perfect sense.

Mark Lang docdave88 � 2 days ago

I don't think you'll like where the "it's not a human being, it's a ...." road will
take you. I know I certainly don't.
2 � Reply�Share �
Avatar
docdave88 Mark Lang � 2 days ago
I like it fine. It's not a new thought. I've been refining it for years.

But please don't tell me that you think Lockett had ANY claim whatsoever on any
consideration due a human being. It was a monster. Now it's a dead monster. Good.
1 � Reply�Share �
Avatar
Mark Lang docdave88 � 2 days ago
First, you tell me why someone on the left can't declare you "not a human being"
for your beliefs? You know - like the Nazis did for the Jews.
.
Really? You need this explained to you?
� Reply�Share �
Avatar
docdave88 Mark Lang � 2 days ago
LOL

Unlike the Jews I am perfectly prepared to defend myself for one thing. For the
record, your "someone on the left" can have anything I have any time they want it.

All. They. Have. To. Do. Is. Take. It.

As with so many things, Benjamin Franklin, the smartest man to ever walk American
soil, said it best:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a
well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

But I will not chase your red herring.

I suggested nothing even remotely suggesting a group or a race be attacked.

We are talking about criminals here and beyond that, the worst kind of criminals.
Consider that poor baby Lockett, the current darling of the left. He raped,
tortured, shot and ultimately buried ALIVE that girl.

You can argue with all of the straw men you want. You can release all of the red
herrings you want. But if you think that monster deserves to be considered a human
being then I PITY you.

As far as I am concerned, execution with 16 ounce Craftsman claw hammer is too

gentle for that monster. Buried to his neck on the high plains of Baca County,
Colorado and letting the ants and the buzzards take care of him would have been
fitting.

But go ahead and live in your gentle world. Just hope that it's me, or someone like
me that happens along when it's your daughter being raped. I have the means and the
will to protect her.

You call 911 when you're in danger.

I'll call 911 after I've taken care of the danger.

molon labe

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377588/against-capital-punishment-charles-c-
w-cooke