Right to live/Right to life

[Bee]

I’m starting from the point that life is precious. There are some lives I struggle to defend, such as Hitler, but he was a human and he was someone’s son, someone’s brother, someone’s family. I digress.

Everyone has an inalienable human right to life, even those who commit murder. And sentencing a person to death and executing them violates that right. There’s no getting round that, unless you don’t uphold the right to life.

Conversely, the counter-argument is that a person can forfeit human rights, and that murderers forfeit their right to life. So, which do you give more weight to, the right to life, or the right to execute?

Human life is valuable. I have the unshakeable belief that human life is so valuable that even the worst murderers should not be deprived of the value of their lives, particularly when other punishments (ie prison) exist.

Who are we to play God, determining who will live and who will die?

How does killing someone because they’ve killed stack up? It makes no sense. We cannot teach that killing is wrong, by killing.

What value do we place on human life? How do we make decisions about life and death? Should we - or should we leave everything to run its natural course?

 

[Jon]

This brings to mind the pre-emptive strike. A drone takes out Al Qaeda warlords, plus all the collateral damage: children; families; the innocent.

If these operatives are likely to kill many thousands in the future, is this removal of the "right to life" justified?

 

[Bee]

Conversely, the counter-argument is that a person can forfeit human rights, and that murderers forfeit their right to life. So, which do you give more weight to, the right to life, or the right to execute?

Kill or be killed? Isn't war simply state-sanctioned murder?

 

[Jon]

Or is being defenseless state-sanctioned suicide?

 

[Bee]

I think it's a matter of conscience. To agree with the notion of a pre-emptive strike, you'd have to accept that people will die as a result - and be at peace with your conscience on the matter. Thus, you introduce 'shades of grey' into the mix.

Different rules apply to the military. But should they?

 

[Jon]

If you have a 90% probability of being shot down by taking a flight to the USA, would you take that flight? Probabilistic thinking makes sense, does it not? Otherwise, the entire justice system would collapse. Just consider the phrase, "Beyond all *reasonable* doubt."

Edit: My post was not clear. I am referring to probabilistic thinking of the risk of a warlord committing acts of terror in the future, and therefore justifying the decision to take them out.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Let's start with a simple fact. There IS no right to life. There is only the right to strive to live. Look at the way Nature works. You live if and only if you CAN live. You have whatever mental and physical gifts that were granted by Nature. You can learn (since learning is one of the gifts) how to survive better by observing your foes. Or you can learn from your family/pack/tribe. You can prevail if you can plan (because planning is another gift) how to prevail. And so on.

A government can officially recognize the right to life and then impose penalties to those who don't play by that rule. When we in the USA said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are endowed with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - we were establishing the rules by which we would play. But you must answer this question: What do you do when someone breaks the rules?

For purposes of discussion, I ask this question: If someone commits murder, that person obviously doesn't believe that the right to life applied to his/her victim. Is it not therefore a valid strategy to decide that if that person doesn't want to play by the rules - i.e. they stand outside the "game" - then we can treat them as BEING outside the game - and killing them because they won't play our game?

Of course this is a non-trivial question because it opens the door to selectively playing by the rules. So then you must define the selectivity that allows you to step outside the rules and step back in at a later time. It becomes a slippery slope. But for discussion purposes, it is one possible viewpoint.

 

[Jon]

Doc, I presume by your argument above that you believe prisoners should not have the right to vote. They played outside the game. What about the right to food and water? Or human treatment? How about Guantanamo Bay? If some of the inmates were guilty, is waterboarding therefore justified? [Said with a jabbing stick, but in good spirit.]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The point isn't only what I feel but what society feels. In the USA, prisoners lose liberty and voting rights (though oddly enough, I believe they still have the right to vote for President.) And "prisoners" is a generic term. I think that if we are going to take away from them the means to fend for themselves but yet don't intend to kill them, then it follows that we are responsible for their reliance on our ability to provide for them. We are responsible for remembering that we want them to return to open society once they have "paid their debt."

When we get to death-penalty cases, we have to remember that errors in the penal system have led to incorrect incarcerations. Therefore, up to the point where a person is actually executed, we have to still treat them as though we want them to return to society.

As a side note on the waterboarding: It has long been known that "enhanced interrogation" results in low-quality intel. How many cases have been documented where USA police have interrogated suspects until they wore them down into admitting something that they actually didn't do? Exhaustion can be a very persuasive tool, but not with respect to getting the truth. Torture never really works. All you get is people who will tell you anything you want them to say - but truth isn't necessarily a component of what they say at that point.

 

[Jon]

If these "enhanced interrogation" (oh how we like to dress up words!) techniques don't work, why are they using them? Surely they know the data more than us lay people do. Let us assume they get low quality data. Maybe some of the data can help. e.g. you torture 10 people and get 1 piece of data that is super-helpful. I know that sounds terrible!!

There has been a debate in recent years in the UK over whether or not prisoners should have the right to vote. I believe they still have the right. Say about 70% certain on that, if using the thinking in bets approach.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Waterboarding and electric shock and a few other techniques were used but the intel just wasn't that good. Maybe you get one nugget out of 10 or 20 sessions, but you do better if you can convince the person through logic and reason that they should tell you what you want to know.

As to why they were used? Some jackass thought they were useful despite the bad reputation of those methods. But they never asked me so I never had the chance to tell them to not do it.

 

[Jon]

Maybe it is a case of the fish rots from the head down. Orders come from above...and they are from authority so you gotta obey them right? Administer those shocks. They have a white lab coat on! [For those who know about the authority experiments, you will know what I am talking about.]

 

[The_Doc_Man]

"They have a white lab coat on! "

Jon, why do you think I included "Doc" in my screen name? It IS legit, by the way, representing my Ph.D. in chemistry. But I learned a long time ago (actually from a customer) that "Doc" counts for more than "Mr." in arguments. When I was a contractor with the U.S. Navy, my employers made it a point to refer to me as "Doc" even though my degree wasn't directly applicable to the project. Even with the government, prestige factors count big time. Most folks know me as Richard or just "Rich" and I answer to that. Truth be known, you can call me anything you like as long as you don't call me late for supper.

 

[Jon]

I wondered where the Doc comes from, and yes, it does provide gravitas. It is a symbol of attainment and in particular has more association with medical doctor, a high status profession. A long time ago, letters after your name actually meant something too, but nowadays nearly everybody has a degree and so counts for nothing.