War is no excuse for "legalised" murder. Often the military command will use the execution of its combatants to hide the fact that some have realised the futility of the conflict, and the incompetence of the leadership, both political and military. This was the case on both sides during WWI, a most disastrous war if there ever was one. For example, at least 918 French soldiers were executed between 1914 and 1918, making it the army that shot the greatest number of its own men.

Then there is the murderous atrocities committed in all wars against prisoners and non-combatants, which often go unpunished, or only a token punishment at best. For example, during the Vietnam War in 1968 between 347 and 504 unarmed Vietnamese were murdered by U.S. Army soldiers, this was known as the My Lai Massacre. Twenty-six soldiers were charged with criminal offences, but only Lieutenant William Calley Jr., a platoon leader, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but served only three and a half years under house arrest.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Regarding the concept of the social contract you ask : « But what about those who never signed that contract? »

And you object : [The fact of being simply within the jurisdiction of the state] … « does not imply any agreement whatsoever with you »

I'm afraid it does, Yuyutsu, as contracts implied-in-law (called “quasi-contracts”) are not predicated on the assent of the parties, but, rather, exist regardless of assent. A contract implied-in-law is actually an obligation imposed by law and treated as a contract only for the purposes of a remedy.

There are two types of implied contracts : a contract implied-in-fact and a contract implied-in-law. Neither are expressed in writing or even orally, but both are legally binding. We enter into contracts implied-in-fact, routinely, in our daily lives, without even noticing it.

When you order food at a restaurant. You have a legal obligation to pay for the meal, even though you didn’t sign anything when you sat down, and never actually said to the waiter at any point, “I shall pay for this food.” Your actions made the agreement for you.

An implied contract is defined as : “a contract that is not written or spoken, but which is assumed to exist based on the circumstances”.

With respect to contracts implied-in-fact, the contract defines the duty. In the case of contracts implied-in-law (quasi-contracts), the duty defines and imposes the agreement upon the parties.

You will recall that it is by application of the principle of the social contract (contract implied-in-law or quasi-contract) that I indicated in my post to o sung wu that individuals within the jurisdiction of the state who commit atrocious crimes deserve, in my opinion, to lose their right to life, in accordance with the principles of “quantum meruit” (what they have earned) and “quantum valebat” (as much as it was worth) – neither more nor less.

.

.

Dear Mr Opinion, o sung wu & ttbn,

.

Mr Opinion wrote :

« Those among you who condone capital punishment seem to be of the opinion that it is not right for a person to kill another person but it is alright for you to kill another person through the agency of the State thus absolving you of criminal action. As an individual, what gives you the right to decide who lives or dies? Remember the old adage 'Two wrongs don't make a right.' »
.

o sung wu wrote :

« … what moral, legal, or secular right, has any individual to take a human life … If it's unlawful for one person to take the life of a human being; then why is it entirely lawful for another to do so? Save for accident, misadventure, instances of War, self-defence et al.? »
.

Personally, I do not “condone capital punishment”. I simply consider that individuals found guilty under a democratic process of justice of having breached the social contract by committing an atrocious crime, forfeit their right to life and should be euthanised as painlessly and humanely as modern science can allow.

Naturally, you are both right in declaring that nobody has the right to kill another person, even if that other person is the perpetrator of an atrocious crime. The state alone, representing the sovereign people – not just a single person or a group of people – has not only that right, but also, in my opinion, the duty to do so, and only after complete termination of the full democratic judicial process.
.

ttbn wrote :

« The ghastly injustice of the Pell case … should be enough to warn people off the death penalty. You can release innocent people from jail … but you can't bring people back from the dead »

Cardenal George Pell may or may not be on the right side of justice. We don’t know yet. What we do know is that there are far more guilty sex offenders walking the streets than there are in jail.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

You just supported and verified exactly what I said.

.

Dear Paul1405,

.

You wrote :

« War is no excuse for "legalised" murder. Often the military command will use the execution of its combatants to hide the fact that some have realised the futility of the conflict, and the incompetence of the leadership, both political and military … »
.

Wherever there is man, there is war, together with all the horror, the suffering and the injustice. It has invaded the world and will spread throughout the universe. I'm afraid there is no end in sight :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XHEPoMNP0I

.

Dear Foxy,

Nice to have you back.

I hope everything went well an you’re OK.

.

Banjo Paterson,
Did God make the wrong decision to create humans ? He could have simply just let the animals tear each other up instead of creating the super animal Human !