Does Law Have a Right to Put Someone to Death ?

[MonsterHunterMaster]

- Track each criminal down because of the implanted chip.

- Stop criminals from doing their job because most places have a security camera and a turret (maybe not so soon).

- I think the first reason is bad enough.

 

But this would fit into the "Is the government spying on us" thread a bit..

[AncientSpaceAeon]

- Track each criminal down because of the implanted chip.

- Stop criminals from doing their job because most places have a security camera and a turret (maybe not so soon).

- I think the first reason is bad enough.

 

But this would fit into the "Is the government spying on us" thread a bit..

Such coincidence that topic is another topic of mine.

 

And about Gandhi (the guy we've quite be talking about a couple post ago, about eye for an eye), I realized a suprising facts.

 

I do not want to see the allies defeated. But I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed. Englishmen are showing the strength that Empire builders must have. I expect them to rise much higher than they seem to be doing.

Just a fact.

[rebalious]

AA its common knowledge Ghandi was apathetic to Hitler, and this was during the war before Hitlers death Camps were known about. Ghandi later stated he would have let Hitler kill him rather than fight back.

 

Just a fact.

[desperado2008]

Gandhi sympathized Axis, he intended to cooperate with japanese army in order to obtain independence from british rule and Nazi gemany organized an Indian SS volunteer legion.

[rebalious]

Gandhi sympathized Axis, he intended to cooperate with japanese army in order to obtain independence from british rule and Nazi gemany organized an Indian SS volunteer legion.

As I understand he was apathetic, whichever won would have made no difference to him. Neither side would have granted independance to his knowledge.

 

But back on topic...

[evilneko]

The law, or rather more appropriately, the State, has whatever rights the majority of society gives it, regardless what any one individual may believe. It us up to society, up to the people, to demand and affect change when the majority begins to think differently about something the State is doing. Otherwise, and at risk of sounding heartless, they give tacit acceptance, until such time as they do something. Those in the opposition who don't even try aren't so much giving the State rights as letting them have them.

 

But, evilneko, what about tyrannical dictatorships?

 

While locally, the majority society may not want the tyrannical State to have the rights that it does, it's still up to world society to demand and affect change. It's also still up to the afflicted society to make their discontent known.

 

If you believe the state has no right to do something that they do, work to remove it!

[Balagor]

@evilneko

True the goverment makes the laws, and the goverment is elected. But they do not always make laws that represent the majority of the population.

In US as far as I know only 2 parties are represented, democratics and republicans. Many other countries have it like this.

In Denmark we have a 9 partie goverment, and not even here, they can make laws that fully satisfy all.

What I try to say is, that maybe death penalties are correct acording to the law. But is the law correct?

 

I googled some crime statistics for DK and US. Each year 0,005 % of US population get murdered. In DK it´s 0,001 %

So 5 times less get murdered in DK, and we have no death penalty.

 

So is it right or wrong? Yes, you follow your laws. Morally? No. Help against crimes? No. However I do hear about some cases from time to time, where i scream in front of my telly: "fry him". But that´s emotional. That´s not objective. Study each case with care.