The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

I'd guess that he/she is an elected MP though - I don't follow The Circus, however, so I may be wrong in this assumption.

[Frank]

The possibilities are endless and do not need to rely on government coercion.

How does an approval rating of between 77-90%* equal 'government coercion'?


* https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/what-does-public-think-about-nhs

[The Legendary Shark]

Approval does not indicate legitimacy.

[Hawkmumbler]

How so?

[The Legendary Shark]

There are people who approve of female genital mutilation, persecution of anyone different and execution. Their approval does not make any of these things legitimate.

[TordelBack]

An excellent answer: the death penalty in the UK being a good example of where approval and political legitimacy differ, polls regularly indicating its popularity at over 50%, but parliament refusing to legislate to that effect*. Thank feck. 

However, legitimacy can be conferred (and understood) in many different ways (the examples of 'approved' acts Shark cites have historically been granted legitimacy by tradition and/or religious belief), so I suspect we end up appealing to an absolute morality for an absolute legitimacy.  And seeing as such a thing is elusive (although I do firmly believe it exists as an ideal, and that we are steadily working our way towards it), the legitimacy granted by a well-informed and morally-engaged electorate is a useful guide - unfortunately we don't have one of those either.



*Only finally abolished by the Human Rights Act (1998), which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, my Eurosceptic chums!

[The Legendary Shark]

The death penalty is a good one for debate. It was the state that imposed it and removing its own "right" to execute people is one of the better things our state has done. (Although it still reserves the "right" to bomb people and call it war.)

There is debate even in libertarian circles over this. Some think that nobody has the right to take a human life in retribution and some think that it should be up to the victim's family to decide on "an eye for an eye" basis. I don't find either side wholly convincing but lean towards the former. In the latter case, at least the state is denied the right to decide and the victim's family has the right to choose the murderer's punishment, from compensation through incarceration to the ultimate sanction.

As Tordels says, this kind of thing rests on human morality, which is notoriously difficult to legislate. A good place to begin infusing morality into society is, I believe, the Golden Rule - but even this gives no clear-cut answer to the question of execution

What does the hive mind think about this?

[JamesC]

The death penalty is a good one for debate. It was the state that imposed it and removing its own "right" to execute people is one of the better things our state has done. (Although it still reserves the "right" to bomb people and call it war.)

There is debate even in libertarian circles over this. Some think that nobody has the right to take a human life in retribution and some think that it should be up to the victim's family to decide on "an eye for an eye" basis. I don't find either side wholly convincing but lean towards the former. In the latter case, at least the state is denied the right to decide and the victim's family has the right to choose the murderer's punishment, from compensation through incarceration to the ultimate sanction.

As Tordels says, this kind of thing rests on human morality, which is notoriously difficult to legislate. A good place to begin infusing morality into society is, I believe, the Golden Rule - but even this gives no clear-cut answer to the question of execution

What does the hive mind think about this?

When faced with tough moral questions my thought process is usualy 'what would Jean Luc Picard think?'
It's as good a yard stick as any, I find.

[TordelBack]

Hold a meeting of the senior staff, ignore Worf, listen to Data, and then get Geordi to modify the main deflector dish?

Ultimately the death penalty demeans everyone involved: it demonstrably has no deterrent role (arguably the opposite), it presents enormous risks of injustice, not to mention the legal expense and the practical difficulties of 'humane' execution, and thus it has no role except as pure state-sanctioned vengeance.  We all love a bit of vengeance as individuals, but societies have to be above it to survive.  A life wasted in prison is no moral walk in the park either, but it stops short of the barbarity of eye-for-an-eye, includes the potential of rehabilitation, and the possibility for wrongful conviction to be overturned.   

And even if there was no other argument against it, the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 would hold the day. 

[JamesC]

Hold a meeting of the senior staff, ignore Worf, listen to Data, and then get Geordi to modify the main deflector dish?

Ultimately the death penalty demeans everyone involved: it demonstrably has no deterrent role (arguably the opposite), it presents enormous risks of injustice, not to mention the legal expense and the practical difficulties of 'humane' execution, and thus it has no role except as pure state-sanctioned vengeance.  We all love a bit of vengeance as individuals, but societies have to be above it to survive.  A life wasted in prison is no moral walk in the park either, but it stops short of the barbarity of eye-for-an-eye, includes the potential of rehabilitation, and the possibility for wrongful conviction to be overturned.   

And even if there was no other argument against it, the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 would hold the day. 

I read this in Patrick Stewart's voice.

[The Legendary Shark]

I'm inclined to agree with Tordels on this, but just to play Devil's advocate for a...

Bollocks to it. I've had a long, hard day; my back is aching, my blisters are burning, my muscles seem to have dribbled away and I want me tea. Just pretend I shouted something about Kahless the Unforgettable while slicing my own palm open with a d'k tahg and let me fall asleep in me chair.

[Proudhuff]

Hold a meeting of the senior staff, ignore Worf, listen to Data, and then get Geordi to modify the main deflector dish?

Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4 would hold the day.

I came here to get away from Football!!

[JayzusB.Christ]

In the latter case, at least the state is denied the right to decide and the victim's family has the right to choose the murderer's punishment

I don't believe someone who has lost a family member to a violent crime is really the person to make a logical, rational decision in a case like that.  While I could not imagine how awful it must be to be bereaved in such a terrible way; life-or-death legal decisions that are fueled by a mix of grief and hatred (however understandable) might not be beneficial in creating a better and more humane society. 

[The Legendary Shark]

The idea, as I understand it, is that a court determines what happened and renders a verdict. A range of suitable punishments is offered and it's up to the victim's family to decide which is imposed. Only in the case of deliberate, premeditated murder would the death penalty be on the table.

[TordelBack]

I choose Thunderdome.  Always Thunderdome.