From: Michael S. Lorrey (mike@lorrey.com)
Date: Thu Jun 03 1999 - 09:08:27 MDT
dwayne wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > If it is seen as common that all
> > are immortal, and that immortality is some sort of right, would not imposing
> > death of any kind be seen as too excessive to allow as a punishment for a crime
> > or for a defense against a criminal in the act. Thoughts, anyone?
>
> I don't think death is a valid defense. Defense is a valid defense, if
> you can inactivate someone, then you should use that rather than killing
> them.
>
> I'm not into this "eye for an eye" thing, I think you should sort your
> own shit out, and to that end I think you should avoid killing someone
> wherever possible, and avoid harming them wherever possible, etc.
I concur wholly with this. The thing you are overlooking is that it is not always
possible now, is it?
> I should expect that by the time we have immortality sorted out we can
> acquire non-lethal technologies.
>
> Not that I am overly squeamish about killing people, I just think that
> as a mark of self-respect you should minimise the harm you cause
> wherever possible.
>
> I'd rather a population heavily armed with tazers, say, than machine
> pistols.
I take the opposite view. Arming everyone with tazers that you know won't kill anyone
will make people shock happy, preferring to shock first and ask questions later,
because its easier than dealing with a confrontation and coming to a resolution.
Women will shock men at the end of a date cause they don't want to go through the
unpleasantness of telling the guy to buzz off and risk a bad response to the
rejection.
Making the consequences of employing force high forces people to deal with a
situation as well as they can FIRST without resorting to any force, whether it is
lethal or non-lethal.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:57 MST