Justin: “A petition like this is intended for the people who have the power to make the decision to release or keep the captives — the captors”

My question wasn’t about the petition. I know why that stresses these points and I think it’s quite reasonable to do so. What I was less sure about was the purpose of mentioning it in this blog post, advertising the petition, which I take it was aimed at sympathetic people who are likely to sign it, rather than the captors. (Unless you mean to suggest that you expect guerillas in Iraq to be reading your blog. Which I take it that you don’t.)

Justin: “I think you ought to have been able to puzzle that one out without leaping immediately to the worst possible conclusion. But if you were sincere, then I’ll just suggest gently that such leaps do not generally produce sympathy in the person who you are addressing, and it is therefore unlikely to lead to fruitful communication.”

As I said already, I didn’t leap to a conclusion; I asked a question. Which you’ve partially answered above — thanks — although as I mention above I don’t understand all the details of your answer. If you’re going to give suggestions, gentle or otherwise, about interpretive charity, you ought to be able to puzzle out the difference between a clarificatory question and an accusation, and not read malicious intent into the former unless you have pretty strong reasons for doing so.

Not quite. What my argument amounts to is the claim that bare “potentials” aren’t enough to justify the extremely confident claims you are making on behalf of lethal violence. Lots of things are possible. Not all of those possibilities constitute a threat that you can legitimately use violence to respond to.

Just what do you think the probability of a prison break from maximum-security lockdown is? Do you actually think that the risk that a convict in the slammer poses to you is greater than the threat posed to you by random strangers on the street?

“Just because I believe a lot of laws shouldn’t be there doesn’t mean I believe we should ignore them while they are there.”

Why not? What is it about The Law that makes it so important that you should follow it even when it involves violating somebody’s human rights?

I mean, you could say that premeditated deliberate killing of (some kinds of) criminals doesn’t violate human rights. Fine, but then it’s insincere of you to claim that you’re unsure of your feelings about the death penalty. You’re already fine with it, and it being The Law has nothing in particular to do with it.

thickvixen: That’s great he’s come around, after 15 years in jail acting like a thug, and finally realized his wrong doing. That doesn’t erase his crime.

Neither does killing him.

So what’s the point, again?

What contract? I don’t remember signing any contracts. Do you?

Do you think (1) your right to life depends on having made some kind of “contract” with your fellow citizens? If you did, then I could understand why you’d think (2) it’s important to make one up and pretend that it existed even though it never did. But then, I don’t know why you’d believe (1) in the first place.

To be fair, the per curiam opinion in Furman held only that the imposition of the death penalty in the specific cases at hand violated the Eighth Amendment for reasons unstated, because the 5 votes for overturning the death sentences were so deeply divided over the reasons. Two of those five (Brennan and Marshall) did argue that the death penalty as such violated the Eighth Amendment.

It’s too bad they didn’t win out. Not because I have any firm opinion on whether or not the death penalty is permitted by the Constitution (I suspect it isn’t, but I don’t care), but rather because it would have saved 1,000 people’s lives, and that’s more important.

Some people revel in death and glory in destruction. One way to identify them is when they go out of their way to imagine lurid and painful deaths for the target of their Schadenfreude. E.g. going so far as to manufacture a “frying” for someone who will, if mercy is denied, be killed by poisoning rather than electrocution. Because, you know, the electric chair is so much more picturesque.

Well, thank God they only screwed up on small things.

Like slavery.

And your argument is that it’s morally acceptable to deliberately kill someone, with premeditation, on the basis of the bare “potential” for the “loss of more lives.”

There’s a potential that you could find me and kill me in my sleep. Does that give me the right to slit your throat in order to “guarantee” that you won’t?

“Even though I am still unsure of my feeling towards the death penalty, it is the law and he definitely qualifies.”

Oh, well, if it’s the law there can’t possibly be any ethical qualms about its enforcement or any reasons to think it should be changed or ameliorated or suspended when somebody’s life is at stake.

Thanks for clearing that one up.