|
Oh, Lord K, don't blame Yorick -- I take responsibility for sending us there, albeit via inadvertant admonishment.
Yorick, I posted a very good counter-rebuttal to "two wrongs don't make a right" in GD, and I urge you seek it out.
But, here is the nub of it. It is wrong for me to imprison you in a place. It is wrong for me to take your money. However, these are perfectly acceptable punishments for the state to levy against you when you commit a crime. The state can fine you, and the state can imprison you.
The same is true with the death penalty. If the social contract makes it clear that an intentional killing (not in self-defense) is repairable/punishable by an equal sacrifice on your part (i.e. sacrificing your one equal priceless thing, your life) then there is nothing wrong with it. It is part of the social contract. Only a life may pay for a life. Accordingly, the state does not take your life, rather you take your life when you kill, as only your life can pay the price of what your crime "bought." The state merely enforces the social contract.
Sorry, but I do not foresee you overcoming this argument.
If we do not let emotion become involved (as my admonishment above indicates), then we realize that the D.P. is not "killing" by society, but rather society (with sadness) enforcing the social contract. Society may not like imprisoning you for life, but the rules say it must be done. Similarly, society may not like taking your life, but the decision was made by you when you "purchased" a life -- you knew the price.
I agree governments should "lead from the top." However, the paramount thing to do when leading from the top is showing that however sad the price may be, someone's willingness to incur the price must be accepted, else chaos results.
__________________
 
|