Why should the State have the power to decide life or death?

Question

Should the State (a country or a country's government) have the power to decide the fate of someone? Here are two situations for your consideration.

Situation 1:
A person is arrested of the rape and murder of a young child. The media plays a circus around the case and when the person goes to court a guilty verdict is handed down. Should the State have the power to order and carry out a death sentence? What if this person is innocent of the crime that they were accused? There have been many cases of people being executed and then posthumously exonerated. In fact there was one case in the US where the victim of a rape ID'd her attacker, and that evidence alone (due to rest of the case being circumstantial) he was convicted. He was sentenced to life in prison instead of death, but it took 13 year and a DNA test to prove that he was not the perpetrator. When such miscarriages of justice can occur should the state have the power to sentence to death?

Situation 2:
The Sate declares war on another country and orders all able-bodied men to fight. The country has as part of it’s laws and constitution strict anti-killing and anti-forced labour policies and laws. The drafted personnel are forced (many against their will) to train, fight and kill the other countries personnel. Should a country State that does not allow its citizens to kill one another or force one another to labour, with or without pay, against their will, be allowed to go against its own policies and force it’s citizens to fight and kill?

Should the State have the power to decide life or death?

Please note: Judicial systems gain their power from the State, so therefore although the judicial system is separate from the State, the State still decides to scope of the powers the judicial system has.

Please explain your reasoning. Serious answers only please.

Thanks.

ckswife:
As you pointed out my question is ling so I will try to keep this edit brief.

You mentioned about a child discovered covered with someone’s DNA, what if it is a mistake in the testing, testing the wrong sample? Or what if someone lies about, and manufactures the evidence to frame some one? Moreover what if there is no reasonable evidence to corroborate the prosecutions case?

If the person is innocent and put to death based on faulty evidence, Would a “Sorry, we got it wrong” be enough? I doubt that you would accept it if it was someone close to you.

"It is better that one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished."

And what does my age have to do with asking or answering questions

Answer 1

The question has been put so well phrased that answering is simple and short.... thanks!!

I believe that even though to err is human, it does not mean activities should be brought to a standstill in the worry of committing an error. The State or Justice can neither be avoided nor aborted for the sake of preventing possible instances of error.... well, all that is necessary to minimize the errors is what needs to be done.

However, there is an exception to the above.... neither the State not Justice has any right to take away a life simply because it can not give life. Death penalty is not justice, it is barbarism. Extending the same, the State can not force anyone to risk death for any purpose, whatsoever, nor can it in my opinion force anyone to take another life for any purpose under any circumstance, whatsoever. Your examples fall in this category and indeed I disapprove of these powers we have given to the State...... but that is where the problem is... it is we who have given these powers to the State and it is up to us to deprive it of such unwarranted powers..... and of course I am talking of democracies and not other set ups that have even lesser legitimacy in my view. Finally, then it does raise this question as to what right the majority has to impose its choices on the minority, especially if such choices involve questions of life and death.

Superb question... enjoyed thinking through to answer. Thanks.

Answer 2

Firstly, I'm surprised you know that if you're talking about a country, it's State with a capital S...

The theory of the death penalty all goes back to an eye for an eye. So, if they kill someone they should be killed. The State has to decide whether or not that the specific case is 'big,' for a lack of words, enough to get a death penalty. Yes, there has been quite a few mistakes, but if the innocent and guilty all had the ability to contest their cases, then they would go on for years based on new evidence or something of that sort. It is more efficient to do it all the same way. Sad, I know, but that's the way it is.

In a war, you may opt out based on religion or beliefs, you can become a field doctor or something else instead. That is in America. Also, in America, you also got paid, even when there was a draft. If a State feels like it's threatened then people should be more than willing to fight for their State.Personally, depending on the circumstances, I would kill another man to save myself, or a family if I had one.

Answer 3

Yes

Situation 1

A. There has never been a reputable exoneration of an executed criminal in modern history. Seriously, you can't name one! There have been exonerations of death row prisoners, but not executed ones. But then, the same can be said of life sentences. The only difference between a death sentence and a life sentence is how long it takes before you die in prison. The percentage of life prisoners exonerated is lower than the percentage of death sentence prisoners. All you did with life sentencing is take longer to kill the convict. Oh, and the fact that a life sentencee has more time to kill again, and frequently does. The last guy executed in California killed three while serving life (commuted from DP) before he was executed for their murders, but anti-DP proponents somehow wipe that blood off their hands very easily. 5%-10% of life sentences commit another felony after conviction.

B. Everything has error. Allowing policemen to carry guns results in a number of innocent deaths per year. Should that error rate lead to the determination that police can't carry guns? Of course not. And the error rate of police shooting is far higher than the error rate of death sentences. How does one justify armed police without justifying the DP.

Note: Your quaint "better to let a hundred guilty go . . . " saying is wrong if a significant percentage of those hundred people kill again. Then your saving one innocent at the expense of countless more. What do you say to the victims of the criminal that you allowed to kill again?

Last note - What about the more likely scenario when DNA proves they DID DO IT.

Situation 2

A. You elect the officials that legalize the draft. You can stop it with political power. As a citizen of a free nation, you agree to the rules that the democratic republic establishes, because you are a participant.

B. Anti-killing is not the same as anti-murdering. Most states allow justifiable killings (self-defense, defense of another, etc.) and even celebrate their willingness to do so (Have you listened to the US National Anthem?). They just do not allow unjustified killings, aka murder. Same with forced labor. Of course the state has forms of forced labor. My tax burden isn't paid until June. I'm not giving my salary to Uncle Sam because I'm a nice guy!!! I can't pay for a candy bar without some part of my earned dollar going to someone without my consent.

Answer 4

well, the first one, i say NO. You can say, because you did this and this you have to die, its... an easy way out for many, and then a way for innocent people to be shut up, basically, and the truth will probably not get out. I say a life sentence in prison is a lot worse then instant death. I am really.. angry that people could do that.

the second situation, is.. very. i dont know. ON one hand you get forced into going to war, and you die. Of course it is sad for you and your family, but at the same time it is very... noble and they should be proud of you because you may have saved many of your people. so that situation, i think we shouldn't have a draft, because.. thats really not good for the sake of people, staying whole, and respecting their leaders, and creating a good relationship to where we can get things done to our highest ability.

in the united states all males are or will have to be registered for the draft or whatever, but the woman don't, which in your way of stating it is like, the state is deciding that these men need to die in war, but OH not the woman.

I am pretty mad about that, but I dont want to be drafted. and most people really dont want to.

If people say we are free then we shouldn't have leashes like the draft. we aren't as free in the u.s. as people think, but a comparison we are.

the second situation i just dont know about. sort of still confused on my answer if you didn't notice, but yeah.

Answer 5

you're assuming this in many situations occurring off that each Republican thinks this, i do no longer. interior the form it says that federal could desire to intercede while its truly mandatory and a organic disaster qualifies as such. the government should not be allowed to tell human beings what variety of healthcare they could desire to have, what they could desire to purchase or can not and different components of an persons' existence that have not have been given something to do with federal government. it is area of what took place with Katrina in 2005 the governor and mayor of Louisiana have been bickering approximately whether or to no longer placed money into federal help. finally after 6 days of this Bush in basic terms desperate for them and delivered in FEMA and the national defend.

Answer 6

Your question is too dam**ed long. I have 5 children and 5 grandchildren. If one of them is ever found dead and covered with someone's DNA I think that it is reasonable to remove the perpetrator from his/her presence in our society. I do not want them tortured...I just want them gone and the resources that they take up in the world utilized for those who will not abuse their presence here. I do not want them to have the benefit of the doubt it one other child's life and psyche will be ruined by their existence in the future.
The world is a crowded place. There is no room anymore for the slimey perpetrators that will hurt a child. In WWII we sent our sons to eliminate the people who apparently supported Hitler and the Nazis just because it was apparent that their existence was detrimental to the existence of the rest of us. I'm sure many Nazi soldiers died who really didn't deserve it. BUT if it walks like a murdering, duck and it talks like a murdering sadistic duck, maybe it should be treated like a murdering, sadistic duck. The state has
the authority to implement capital punishment because the majority of the citizens that elect it endow it with the power.
It keeps the lynch mobs off the streets. How OLD are you???

Answer 7

Of course they shouldn't. Everyone agrees, but honestly what can we do about it? There is always another side of an issue and it's as strong as yours. That's why I hate about government. Abortion or no abortion? Each side is so strong that it's really hard to choose. I understand, the State shouldn't have such rights, but honestly, what can we do?

Answer 8

we should make the world vote!!! it could be like american idol!!!

"hey heres a creep if you want him to live just dial blahblah"

and then they dance and sing!!!! thats the only real way to make a verdict! ON TALENT!!!!