O sung wu>>It's my own firmly held argument - a terrorist is quite different to that of an ordinary criminal who'd been convicted of a murder, I do hope this explanation goes in some way in answering your question SONOFGLOIN ?<<

Yes OSW I understand...as I mentioned your moral compass does accommodate State executions.....my compass has been redirected....but not because I hold any social value to their lives, rather because we have seen regimes like Soviet Russia use the judicial system to get rid of enemies of the administration...a trial then legally shot.

OSW I have never read any dark undertones in any of your posts, and I don’t believe your stance on terrorists is a floor in an otherwise humanist persona, I understand why the issue emotes you...I have a cast of thousands who I believe should have died for their actions.......but not at the hands of the State.

Banjo Patterson>> under no circumstances, should it extend to include any other form of punishment such as pain, stress, suffering, moral reproach, disparaging remarks or attitudes, impoliteness, or lack of respect.<<

Banjo I read your page 5 post and yes we are generally in unison...but as I posted to OSW it is about who has the right to wilfully take a life that drive my stance. The way I see it the only person who legally has a right to kill is a person defending themselves from life threatening attack.

But I would not blink to see repeat offenders of heinous crimes work 12 hours a day every day of their imprisoned lives then die.

Individual>> This when most problems start when criminals are protected &assisted whilst the victim has to fight & fund with bound hands to defend himself in court of Law.<<

Indy the pendulum was swung by 1970’s lawyers who became advocates for the “found guilty.” Do you remember the avalanche of inmates suing us for everything from falling off their bunks to deprivation of their humanity....most won...they still do.

Good evening SONOFGLOIN...

Thank you for your response. You're quite correct with your assumption that I DO NOT support Capital Punishment under any circumstances. Save for terrorists. By executing them, I see more as ridding the world of an awful disease, rather than applying some form of normal criminal justice punishment, per se.

Of course you're right ? On one hand I totally abhor any notion of re-introducing Capital Punishment ! Yet on the other hand, with terrorists, I would seek to have them executed immediately ! Much like a 'Pest Controller' ridding an ordinary suburban residence, of some menacing infestation of pestilence ?

Again, thank you for qualifying your comments.

.

Dear sonofgloin,

.

You wrote :

« The way I see it the only person who legally has a right to kill is a person defending themselves from life threatening attack »
.

You obviously had Australia in mind when you made that statement.

We are all held to respect the laws of the country in which we live at any particular point of time. They are called “positive” or “man-made” laws (as opposed to the laws of nature).

In those countries where capital punishment is the law, the State also has the legal right to kill people.

Though many countries have abolished or suspended capital punishment, according to Amnesty International, the United States, the Philippines, Japan, Botswana, Gambia, India, Pakistan, Indonesia Kuwait, Nigeria and Vietnam, all resumed practice once again at some point of time. More than 60% of the world’s population live in countries where capital punishment continues to be practiced.

“Positive” laws are promulgated by the political regimes which control them. In a tribal society, it is the will of the elders, the wise men of the tribe who impose law based on tribal customs and traditions. In a monarchy, it is the monarch and his courtesans who hold the reins of power and impose their will. In a theocratic political regime, it is the will of the supreme religious leaders that prevails. Totalitarian regimes, imposed by charismatic leaders or military juntas, dictate their law. In democracies, it is majority rule which prevails, with laws voted by the elected representatives of the people.

But, as I mentioned previously, whatever the political regime may happen to be, we are not only subject to “positive” law, we are also subject to the laws of nature. We always have been and there is no sign of change in sight.

Individually and collectively, we are still driven by the instinct of survival. Part of our problem is that the two sets of laws, are often in opposition, with devastating effects on certain individuals and communities, frequently resulting in the destruction and disorganisation of whole segments of society.

.

Banjo Patterson>> Part of our problem is that the two sets of laws, are often in opposition,<<

How true Banjo.....what is "right" is subjective....I think that why the Greeks started philosophising.