| | I am not sure about the distinction between "self-defense" and "retaliatory force". All force by the government is (or at least shouold be) retaliatory, that is, in response to an initiation of force by criminals, terrorists, etc. All such force is done for the purpose of defense, that is, minimizing further loss by eliminating the threat once and for all. Granted, the instances where we know for sure that someone committed a crime is rare, but they do happen. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, and Hussein are good examples. How about those two Trenchcoat Mafia punks who killed all those people at Columbine High School, say, if they have been taken alive?
Here is another example. Prior or during the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq, would anyone be opposed to deploying Special Forces or Navy SEALs to assassinate Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or any of their lackeys? If not, then how is killing them then different from killing them after capturing them alive? My point is the government has historically been in the business of taking the lives of those who would infringe on the rights of others. I am unsure how the timing of when they're killed matters, whether it be at the moment they commit the crime, or long after.
I have given this matter some thought and I don't have any clear answers. My tentative position is that there are, in fact, instances where the death penalty would be prudent. Any further insights or clarifications would be great.
|
|