one last hug

[scumdog]

succinctly put - and I think that is the crux of it.

I see that as an unacceptable price to pay.

I also hold a point of view that it's not the right of anyone (or anything) to take the life of another in a premeditated manner.

Sort of the price to pay for the freedom of riding a motorcycle - ok, MOST of us are pretty safe riders so the Gov't let use ride on the roads.
We are prepared to do that with the (subconsciousl) thought that innocents get 'cleaned-up' and killed.
A bit like innocent people get 'hung' as part of the 'risk' of being the part of society they are.
Get my drift? or am I too obtuse??

[mstriumph]

my grandad always said it was an error to gamble with what one couldn't afford to lose

every infringement has a penalty

because in Aus and NZ consequences can usually be evaded or minimized some people are misled into thinking that this is a universal truth

or think they will be lucky and not get caught

sometimes they are right - sometimes not

either way a gamble - their choice

[MikeL]

Sort of the price to pay for the freedom of riding a motorcycle - ok, MOST of us are pretty safe riders so the Gov't let use ride on the roads.
We are prepared to do that with the (subconsciousl) thought that innocents get 'cleaned-up' and killed.
A bit like innocent people get 'hung' as part of the 'risk' of being the part of society they are.
Get my drift? or am I too obtuse??

I understand what you are saying and to a certain extent there is an analogy. However it breaks down when you take it too far.

Would you tolerate a society in which continued prosperity for all was guaranteed only by the annual ritual sacrifice of innocent young men and women? Such a practice was not unknown in primitive societies. To a large extent the freedom we enjoy to drive or ride is paid for by an analogous sacrifice. Because neither technology nor human behaviour is perfectible the only way to avoid the sacrifice of lives is to forego the benefit completely. Morally this makes sense. In practice it has become unthinkable (which proves how little morality has to do with modern thinking), and we rationalize our expediency by strenuous but futile efforts to reduce the sacrifice to zero, while only those whose lives have been touched by tragedy ever fully understand what that sacrifice means. Psychologically we nevertheless accept the situation because, apart from the practical aspect, we can relatively easily remove from the equation the question of premeditation or intent. Deaths on the road are "accidental" in the sense that they are rarely the result of a conscious decision to kill. Because "accidental" implies to at least some extent the action of random forces or chance we can persuade ourselves that there is no real moral issue involved.
Now consider the case of capital punishment. We could rationalize the "collateral damage" in the same way we rationalize the road toll, but the question of intent makes the morality a lot more problematical. Propaganda from the LTSA labels road users potential murderers; this is as ridiculous as it is insulting. However it is not playing with words to describe capital punishment as judicial murder.
Most of us are quite happy to ride our bikes and drive our cars with the knowledge that fate, chance or whatever may intervene at some time. A situation in which the state can deliberately murder its citizens, some of whom will inevitably be innocent, seems to me to be quite a different thing.

[mstriumph]

'The state' is supposed to represent the will of 'the people'; ...since, in an issue as contentious as this one
it seems to be difficult to ascertain what 'the people' actually want, how about the following hypothetical?:-

People who commit the crimes of [enter list of crimes decided upon by public referendum here]
would be sentenced to 'life pending death' and incacerated.

It costs $NZ XXX to keep a prisoner in secure detention .....
each year, prior to budget-time, the value of $NZ XXX is calculated for the coming financial year.

The cost of maintaining secure detention facilities for 'life pending death' prisoners is removed
from the budget so it is NOT taxpayer-funded.

Each year a list of the names and convictions of all prisoners currently imprisoned under the 'life pending death' policy, together with their individual convictions, is circulated to all citizens [including the prisoners themselves].

Each citizen can indicate how much s/he is prepared to contribute towards the support of which prisoners
for the coming year.

Those prisoners who do not attract the necessary $NZ XXX are undramatically executed once their funding runs out.

Lump sum cash gifts, bequests, etc. would also be permitted towards the ongoing upkeep
of any individual prisoner ..... the ONLY provisio being that the donor MUST be an individual NZ citizen
[ie not a corporation or other legal entity] and no advertising or formal fundraising is permitted.


In this way, perhaps, people's individual views can impact the system on an ongoing basis .............
.................. because, even just from the postings here, they certainly don't seem to do that currently?


... of course, it'll never happen ..... power for 'the people'? HA!! ... mutter, mutter, mutter

[ManDownUnder]

Sort of the price to pay for the freedom of riding a motorcycle - ok, MOST of us are pretty safe riders so the Gov't let use ride on the roads.
We are prepared to do that with the (subconsciousl) thought that innocents get 'cleaned-up' and killed.
A bit like innocent people get 'hung' as part of the 'risk' of being the part of society they are.
Get my drift? or am I too obtuse??

I see your line of thought...

... but... (a firm taught kind) the essential difference is that we have no say over the outcome of motorcycle accidents. We can't make a rule that says all accidents over nnnkph will result in death (or indeed WON'T result in death).

We don't have control over that destiny and so must accept the outcome without the right of recourse.

There is also no right/wrong decision to be made. Physics, Biology and Medicine will combine settle the matter one way or the other.

No so with smuggling drugs. The judicial system is highly subjective, meaning the subtlties of law, or even the expertise of the lawyers will help determine the outcome of the Guilty/Not Guilty decision. The law can also be changed to determine the severity of the outcome.

Yes there is an assessment of risk when engaging either either activity, and it's an interesting line of argument (that holds a lot of water dammit) but I'm personally all for removing the death sentence as previously mentioned.

MDU

[Lou Girardin]

'The state' is supposed to represent the will of 'the people'; ...since, in an issue as contentious as this one
it seems to be difficult to ascertain what 'the people' actually want, how about the following hypothetical?:-

People who commit the crimes of [enter list of crimes decided upon by public referendum here]
would be sentenced to 'life pending death' and incacerated.

It costs $NZ XXX to keep a prisoner in secure detention .....
each year, prior to budget-time, the value of $NZ XXX is calculated for the coming financial year.

The cost of maintaining secure detention facilities for 'life pending death' prisoners is removed
from the budget so it is NOT taxpayer-funded.

Each year a list of the names and convictions of all prisoners currently imprisoned under the 'life pending death' policy, together with their individual convictions, is circulated to all citizens [including the prisoners themselves].

Each citizen can indicate how much s/he is prepared to contribute towards the support of which prisoners
for the coming year.

Those prisoners who do not attract the necessary $NZ XXX are undramatically executed once their funding runs out.

Lump sum cash gifts, bequests, etc. would also be permitted towards the ongoing upkeep
of any individual prisoner ..... the ONLY provisio being that the donor MUST be an individual NZ citizen
[ie not a corporation or other legal entity] and no advertising or formal fundraising is permitted.


In this way, perhaps, people's individual views can impact the system on an ongoing basis .............
.................. because, even just from the postings here, they certainly don't seem to do that currently?


... of course, it'll never happen ..... power for 'the people'? HA!! ... mutter, mutter, mutter

This has to be a piss-take, right?
Because the logical conclusion of this is a 'survival of the richest' society.

[ManDownUnder]

'The state' is supposed to represent the will of 'the people'; ...since, in an issue as contentious as this one
it seems to be difficult to ascertain what 'the people' actually want, how about the following hypothetical?:-

Na - anything requiring the active or "opt in" participation of people in general is doomed to failure.

xxxKittiexxx's thread about people not giving a rat's butt for a sick girl in their midst is enough evidence of that for me.

How much less would they care about names on a piece of paper?

[mstriumph]

This has to be a piss-take, right?
Because the logical conclusion of this is a 'survival of the richest' society.

sorry, Lou ...... the conversation just seemed to be flagging ......

[Karma]

How much less would they care about names on a piece of paper?

Depends if that name is Weasel!