From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri May 10 2002 - 11:49:54 MDT
On Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 10:37 am, Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
> But does an individual waive some rights when they act against (initiate
> violence) another individual, or do you believe that there should be no
> consequences for such violations?
In a perfect world, I would say no. If we could magically defend the
innocent so that they are invulnerable to attack, then no actions need
to be taken against the attacker. Unfortunately, the world isn't
perfect. If rights must be violated, the attacker should lose theirs
rather than the victims. This opens up further questions about revenge,
retaliation, punishment and deterrence. I do not believe that
deterrence really works. I have known criminals, and none of them
researched laws to determine where punishments were less, nor did they
lookup the punishments for their planned crimes to weigh the risks.
They egotistically assumed that they wouldn't get caught, or in the case
of suicide bombers, they just don't care. They are desperate,
unconcerned, or oblivious. We also have to be careful to overdo
retribution and then find out later that we convicted the wrong person.
But again, the world isn't perfect so this is hard to do. I would
prefer life sentences over death just to protect the innocent if we find
out someone was not guilty. If we could develop a totally reversible
punishment, that would be even better.
> Furthermore, is it right to respect the individual rights of those who
> believe that there are no individual rights, and who state they have
> common cause with those who initiate violence against individuals? If a
> group believes that common good is paramount over everything else, and
> the group, or members of it commit initations of violence, isn't it
> proper to hold the entire group responsible?
I don't think so. This is a very old argument that allows people to do
bad things and blame the low standards on the person being punished.
This is the old "eye for an eye" model, where we take revenge on the
person but claim it is their own fault. We say that it is their action
that caused it, not ours. Such a stance is a quick road to atrocities
committed while blaming the victims. We must stand accountable for our
own actions, and that includes self-defense. We don't execute criminals
because they are killers. They do not dictate our justice system. We
execute criminals because our government system has decided that it
wants certain types of people to die. All jurisprudence activities must
derive from the law of those governed, and not the actions of the
criminals. We must respond in the way that we think is appropriate
under ours standards. We must not adopt the standards of our enemies
and run our justice system in a criminal way as the criminals would act.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:58 MST