tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post6039011773953238618..comments2024-03-29T13:25:33.439+00:00Comments on A K Haart: Self-defenceA K Haarthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05897490979828603179noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-32500392041992102952011-11-01T22:03:20.889+00:002011-11-01T22:03:20.889+00:00JH - yes, I have to admit I wouldn't like to b...JH - yes, I have to admit I wouldn't like to be the judge. I'm not sure that incarceration for life is particularly humane either.<br /><br />SV - I agree that the self is not really being defended in retrospective self-defence, but that is due to the actions of the assailant who if you like, prevented the victim's legal right to self-defence.<br /><br />As in all these cases we can spin scenarios and then pick holes in them. This is just one such scenario, but as I see it, we can pick holes in them all, including the current legal situation.A K Haarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05897490979828603179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-34324161830738214882011-11-01T12:55:17.677+00:002011-11-01T12:55:17.677+00:00I don't think the law would say of the second ...I don't think the law would say of the second scenario that C was the "right person" to be killed. To say this would, of course, be to invite the question as to why the state does not execute murderously-inclined robbers under all circumstances; which is what makes your argument work.<br /><br />Currently, the law would say that C should not have been killed, but that D's actions were understandable, or constrained, or inevitable, thereby excusing him from the penalty normally associated with murder in the course of a robbery.<br /><br />The same point is found in the idea that there is no "retrospective self-defence". Self-defence is exactly that: the saving of one's life, which excuses one from culpability in some respects. The same would not apply after the event. No self is being defended by judicial execution, at least in this case.Sam Vegahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05978971199859845931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2481298417819219839.post-92013264447247676152011-11-01T07:02:34.707+00:002011-11-01T07:02:34.707+00:00There is the philosophical point, then there is th...There is the philosophical point, then there is the problem of absolute guilt with execution and then there is the cost of keeping a lowlife locked up forever.<br /><br />The middle one seems to have something going for it if the evidence was overwhelming. On the other hand, if A had pleaded Guilty and executed or had pleaded not guilty and because of the doubt, he wasn't executed, then that is also problematic.James Highamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14525082702330365464noreply@blogger.com