As it stands? No, of course not. Considering what society would become? Still no. I'd leave. If it's spread everywhere, I'd find somewhere uninhabited and live there while I waited for the laws to change or the societies to collapse and rebuild. If the only way to survive in a society is to project an aura of perfect unceasing strength, I'm either going to leave that society, or quickly be killed off.
Very few people "deserve" death. What most of the mildly-to-moderately objectionable need is to be taken aside, cuffed upside the head, and told "knock it off"; modern societies have precious few ways of doing that- our punishments tend to be much more serious. The more seriously objectionable usually just need to be removed from something; a person, a group of people, some specific stimulus. Death isn't something you can take back, and a dead person can't appeal their sentence; there's a reason many countries (and many localities) have no death penalties. If it's going to be just, it has be handed out rarely. On the other hand...
I'm assuming that here you're referring to Brock Turner. You can argue whether what we did should constitute rape, but under the law, it doesn't, which is why the rape charges were dropped. He was convicted on three counts of sexual assault, and sentenced very lightly (six months, from a maximum of fourteen years)- as courts often do for first offenders, which he was. Our society goes absolutely insane over anything suggestive of sexual impropriety, which depending on the circumstances, can mean almost anything having anything to do with sex. If you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car, you're responsible for the destruction you may cause. If you get drunk and have a regrettable sexual encounter, somehow the standard of responsibility disappears entirely, and you can't consent even if you wanted to; you were illegally taken advantage of by the other person, even if they were also drunk, which is what happened in the Turner case. Add in the recommendations of the probation board, and it makes a great deal of sense to hand down a light sentence. Turner was released early from this, yes, but that was for good behavior; not something that's at all unusual.
So what has Turner done that warrants death? He fingered a drunk woman and kept doing it after she passed out. He was arrested, tried, convicted, went to prison, behaved well, and was released early. Is he responsible for the actions of the jury that convicted him, the judge that sentenced him, or the parole board that released him? That doesn't make any sense at all. That leaves the sexual assault charge. Are you really claiming that that should carry a death sentence? Or are you just leaping on the bandwagon of outrage and making assumptions based on incomplete information?
I'm not defending Turner's actions here. He broke the law, and those who break the law should be punished for it. But they should be punished according the law, not according to the armed mob standing outside their house. We've seen similar mobs in the past sentence people to death for such crimes as "encouraging black people to vote" and "whistling at a white woman while Irish". It doesn't end well. And I'm not accusing you of some sort of wicked conspiracy or a longing to return to those days, just of not thinking this through. If vigilante justice becomes acceptable, we won't need the government to declare it won't prosecute murder; it'll already have done so.
Very few people "deserve" death. What most of the mildly-to-moderately objectionable need is to be taken aside, cuffed upside the head, and told "knock it off"; modern societies have precious few ways of doing that- our punishments tend to be much more serious. The more seriously objectionable usually just need to be removed from something; a person, a group of people, some specific stimulus. Death isn't something you can take back, and a dead person can't appeal their sentence; there's a reason many countries (and many localities) have no death penalties. If it's going to be just, it has be handed out rarely. On the other hand...
... sometimes, the guns should be pointed in the other direction. Let me preemptively say I'm not trying to derail here, this is relevant to the larger discussion.Sniper Team 4 said:
I'm assuming that here you're referring to Brock Turner. You can argue whether what we did should constitute rape, but under the law, it doesn't, which is why the rape charges were dropped. He was convicted on three counts of sexual assault, and sentenced very lightly (six months, from a maximum of fourteen years)- as courts often do for first offenders, which he was. Our society goes absolutely insane over anything suggestive of sexual impropriety, which depending on the circumstances, can mean almost anything having anything to do with sex. If you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car, you're responsible for the destruction you may cause. If you get drunk and have a regrettable sexual encounter, somehow the standard of responsibility disappears entirely, and you can't consent even if you wanted to; you were illegally taken advantage of by the other person, even if they were also drunk, which is what happened in the Turner case. Add in the recommendations of the probation board, and it makes a great deal of sense to hand down a light sentence. Turner was released early from this, yes, but that was for good behavior; not something that's at all unusual.
So what has Turner done that warrants death? He fingered a drunk woman and kept doing it after she passed out. He was arrested, tried, convicted, went to prison, behaved well, and was released early. Is he responsible for the actions of the jury that convicted him, the judge that sentenced him, or the parole board that released him? That doesn't make any sense at all. That leaves the sexual assault charge. Are you really claiming that that should carry a death sentence? Or are you just leaping on the bandwagon of outrage and making assumptions based on incomplete information?
I'm not defending Turner's actions here. He broke the law, and those who break the law should be punished for it. But they should be punished according the law, not according to the armed mob standing outside their house. We've seen similar mobs in the past sentence people to death for such crimes as "encouraging black people to vote" and "whistling at a white woman while Irish". It doesn't end well. And I'm not accusing you of some sort of wicked conspiracy or a longing to return to those days, just of not thinking this through. If vigilante justice becomes acceptable, we won't need the government to declare it won't prosecute murder; it'll already have done so.
