« Revisiting the Speluncean Explorers | Main | Babies on the No Fly List »
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
A Speluncean Follow-Up
Has anyone noticed that the statute at issue in the Speluncean Explorers case is clearly overbroad?
Whoever shall willfully take the life of another shall be punished by death.
By these terms, isn't the executioner subject to the death penalty?
Posted by Hillel Levin on August 16, 2005 at 12:39 PM in Hillel Levin | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83452c1d053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Speluncean Follow-Up:
Comments
I'm sorry, 1 should have read, "...wherein a resolution to the seeming incompatability of God's directive "thou shalt not kill" and God's frequent (in the old testament, at least) directive "thou shalt kill these people and/or this guy" was offered. In that context, the assumption is that God has legitimate power to make life-or-death decisions, and to order them carried out by his agents. Although individual humans do not have that power (and have been explicitly forbidden it), they are and can be agents of the legitimate authority."
I will learn to use the preview button.
I will learn to use the preview button.
I will learn to use the preview button.
I will learn to use the preview button...
Posted by: Simon | Aug 17, 2005 9:39:12 AM
Something similar to this was discussed recently (political cities thread?), wherein the seeming incompatability of God's directive "thou shalt not kill" and God's frequent (in the old testament, at least) directive "thou shalt kill these people and/or this guy". In that context, the assumption is that God has legitimate power to make life-or-death decisions, and to order them carried out by his agents.
Likewise, the presumption is that the State government, having been chartered by the people, carries with it the legitimate authority to make laws pursuant to and within the bounds of that constitution, and to punish infractions thereof. Providing the mechanism is not cruel and unusual, and providing due process is followed, the appropriate range of punishments - up to and including death - is a matter of politics and/or the state constitution's limits. Those laws having been made, punishments having been set, and due process followed, it is therefore not the hangman who is "willfully tak[ing] the life" of the condemned, but the legitimate authority of the state, acting through the agency of the hangman. The same applies for a legitimately-declared war and soldiers fighting in that war.
Posted by: Simon | Aug 17, 2005 9:34:16 AM
Justice Foster notes this. About the broadness he writes: "The statute before us for interpretation has never been applied literally. Centuries ago it was established that a killing in self-defense is excused. There is nothing in the wording of the statute that suggests this exception." Earlier he references the power of "our hangmen" to end lives.
Posted by: ac | Aug 16, 2005 1:52:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.