There has been talk in the UK about assisted suicide, or assisted death: in particular the cases of Kay Gilderdale and Frances Inglis. Also, Sir Terry Pratchett, fantasy author (the Discworld and Truckers series, amongst others), has announced that he has Alzheimers and wants assisted suicide. I think that if we can give my pet a humane and painless death, we should be able to allow a human the same courtesy.
Kay Gilderdale is now calling for a change in the laws regarding assisted death. This makes sense since those with money are already able to travel to Switzerland. This points out a disparity in the law that those with money can leave the jurisdiction to end their lives.
Similarly, laws against abortion only harmed the poor since the wealthy were able to find alternative sources to the illegal back alley abortions.
Assisted death should be a legal option for those who wish for it in a civilised country. That absolutely isn’t to say assisted death should be forced upon anybody, or even encouraged, merely that the option should be available to those who a) are suffering from a condition from which they cannot recover, and b) expressly desire it.
Some opponents of assisted death argue that man should not “play God”. As Sir Terry says, “the problem with the God argument is that it works only if you believe in God”. Legalising assisted death need have no impact on the lives of those who do believe in God: they can go on dying as naturally as God intended. But it should be there for those who don’t believe in God, and yearn desperately for the salvation of assisted death, a salvation that God tends not to offer.
ed. I had originally called him just plain old Terry Pratchett, but decided to call him SIR Terry Pratchett. Why not?
Showing posts with label right to life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right to life. Show all posts
03 February 2010
24 November 2009
More right to life and gun control
It seems that right to lifers are claiming that their position is not inconsistant since they have a right to self-defence. The argument runs:
Unfortunately, this denies the possibility of non-lethal methods of self-defence or acknowledge their efficacy. If effective non-lethal forms of self-defence are aailable, then a person who believes in the right to life should be using those over deadly force.
How about, people have a right to life. All people have a right to life.
They have a right to self-defence, but deadly force is an extreme option. It is the ultimate last resort if you believe that life is sacred.
If one states that there is a right to life, which is more important life? Or the ability to use deadly force to defend your life? Is one person's life more valuable than anothers? Is the possibility that you could harm or kill an innnocent bystander outweigh your own life?
By arguing that deadly force is the first option, one removes the legitimacy of stating that one has a right to life.
I have a right to life, but you don't. Does this make sense?
In fact, the right to life position is totally anti-thetical to the current "no duty to retreat" theory of self-defence. Right to life is in accord to the "back to the wall" theory of self-defence, where every opportunity to avoid, deescalate, and/or withdraw from the situation has to be eliminated making deadly force the LAST option.
The right to life position means that a reasonable person would use reasonable force to end the threat; not deadly force. This means that non-lethal methods are the method of choice, not ones using deadly force. Especially if deadly force could result in harm to innocent bystanders.
If pepper spray is an option, then you must use that rather than deadly force. I find that pepper spray works quite effectively for ending threats. It allows for one to retreat to a point of safety and prevents the possibility of harm to innocent bystanders.
Likewise, everyone has a right to life, therefore, we should work to remove situations where violent confrontations arise. This means that social programs that work to reduce factors that would lead to crime are a priority as well to someone who claims that there is a "right to life".
By eliminated the possibility that non-lethal defence as an option, you have removed any legitimacy of your claim to being pro-life. Life is not sacred, you may kill. You do not believe that you need to first avoid conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using any kind of force: deadly or otherwise.
Sorry, but being pro-gun is totally antithetical to being "right to life" since that means you believe deadly force is an option. You cannot believe that life is sacred, yet be willing to take it.
If every human person has a natural right to life, then he has a right to defend his life against those who would seek to violate this right. This means that one has the right to an effective method of self-defence.
Unfortunately, this denies the possibility of non-lethal methods of self-defence or acknowledge their efficacy. If effective non-lethal forms of self-defence are aailable, then a person who believes in the right to life should be using those over deadly force.
How about, people have a right to life. All people have a right to life.
They have a right to self-defence, but deadly force is an extreme option. It is the ultimate last resort if you believe that life is sacred.
If one states that there is a right to life, which is more important life? Or the ability to use deadly force to defend your life? Is one person's life more valuable than anothers? Is the possibility that you could harm or kill an innnocent bystander outweigh your own life?
By arguing that deadly force is the first option, one removes the legitimacy of stating that one has a right to life.
I have a right to life, but you don't. Does this make sense?
In fact, the right to life position is totally anti-thetical to the current "no duty to retreat" theory of self-defence. Right to life is in accord to the "back to the wall" theory of self-defence, where every opportunity to avoid, deescalate, and/or withdraw from the situation has to be eliminated making deadly force the LAST option.
The right to life position means that a reasonable person would use reasonable force to end the threat; not deadly force. This means that non-lethal methods are the method of choice, not ones using deadly force. Especially if deadly force could result in harm to innocent bystanders.
If pepper spray is an option, then you must use that rather than deadly force. I find that pepper spray works quite effectively for ending threats. It allows for one to retreat to a point of safety and prevents the possibility of harm to innocent bystanders.
Likewise, everyone has a right to life, therefore, we should work to remove situations where violent confrontations arise. This means that social programs that work to reduce factors that would lead to crime are a priority as well to someone who claims that there is a "right to life".
By eliminated the possibility that non-lethal defence as an option, you have removed any legitimacy of your claim to being pro-life. Life is not sacred, you may kill. You do not believe that you need to first avoid conflict and secondly, had taken reasonable steps to retreat and so demonstrated an intention not to fight before eventually using any kind of force: deadly or otherwise.
Sorry, but being pro-gun is totally antithetical to being "right to life" since that means you believe deadly force is an option. You cannot believe that life is sacred, yet be willing to take it.
10 March 2008
The law of self-defence
The issue of Self-defence in regard to the Second Amendment is a real diversion. As I consistently point out, the term is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Secondly, the use of deadly force is extremely limited in most jurisdictions. Of course, there are the "licence to murder" laws which change the common law concept of self-defence to make deadly force a first option.
In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. In other words, you must be threatened by deadly force to use deadly force. If the attacker can be stopped with a non-lethal agent (e.g., pepper spray), then you don't have the right to use deadly force.
So, The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. On the other hand, you would be justified if you had been robbed by someone with a replica firearm or BB gun and shot the robber. But, if you were a black belt and disarmed the person, you would stand a better chance of getting off.
So, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. One is justified in using enough force to stop the attach, but one cannot go beyond that force and become the aggressor. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.
Some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat. This means that if you could back down, or run away, from the threat, you are not justified in using force. Of course, the duty of retreat makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium " i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home is his safest refuge”). However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.
Again, if one could deescalate the situation, but fails to do so, you cannot say that you acted in self-defence.
In some jurisdictions, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person. Again, the force used must only be that necessary to stop the threat.
The problem is that the RKBA crowd want to get more guns on the streets via liberalised CCW laws and the "licence to murder laws" which change the definiton of self-defence to allow for the use of deadly force in situations where it is not justifiable under common law.
No one has the right to deadly force, especially if one wishes to link this to the right of militia members to "keep and bear arms". We have two separate concepts working here: Militia service and self-defence. Every common law jurisdiction has the heritage of these two concepts, yet other common law jurisdictions severely restrict the items which can be used for self-defence. Anyone who has been to England or Canada knows that things like pepper spray, mace, stun guns, and especially firearms and not allowed to be possessed for self-defence.
Another thing which I find odd, is that with all this talk about right to life, no one has brought in Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which defines the Right to Life as follows:
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence. It is for the jury, as ordinary members of the community, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable to use in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from an imminent attack and might not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including his or her beliefs as to the surrounding circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for any mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Jamaican case of Palmer v The Queen, [1971] AC 814:
So, to argue that one has a right to arms for self-defence is a misunderstanding of the common-law concept of self-defence. One only has the right to use as much force is necessary to stop that threat. There is no right to use a firearm if a non-lethal alternative exists that can stop the attack (e.g., pepper spray).
Additionally, one can argue that the right to life means that one cannot be deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fifth Amendment specifically states this, which would put it in conflict with the Second Amendment if that allows for the use of deadly force without justification.
To argue that the Second Amendment allows for the ownership of firearms for self-defence is to take both the Second Amendment and the concept of self-defence totally out of context.
In most jurisdictions, when the defense succeeds, it operates as a complete justification when the degree of violence used is comparable or proportionate to the threat faced, so deadly force would only be excused in situations of "extreme" danger. In other words, you must be threatened by deadly force to use deadly force. If the attacker can be stopped with a non-lethal agent (e.g., pepper spray), then you don't have the right to use deadly force.
So, The defense would fail if a defendant deliberately killed a petty thief who did not appear to be a physical threat. On the other hand, you would be justified if you had been robbed by someone with a replica firearm or BB gun and shot the robber. But, if you were a black belt and disarmed the person, you would stand a better chance of getting off.
So, when an assailant ceases to be a threat (say, being tackled and restrained), the defense will fail if the defending party presses on to attack. One is justified in using enough force to stop the attach, but one cannot go beyond that force and become the aggressor. A somewhat less obvious application of this rule is that admitting the use of deadly force in an attempt to disable rather than kill the assailant can be construed as evidence that the defendant wasn't yet in enough danger to justify lethal force in the first place.
Some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat. This means that if you could back down, or run away, from the threat, you are not justified in using force. Of course, the duty of retreat makes the defense problematic when applied to abusive relationships (see battered woman syndrome and abuse defense), and in burglary situations given the so-called castle exception which argues that one cannot be expected to retreat from one's own home, namely, “a man’s house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium " i.e. Latin for "and each man’s home is his safest refuge”). However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.
Again, if one could deescalate the situation, but fails to do so, you cannot say that you acted in self-defence.
In some jurisdictions, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person. Again, the force used must only be that necessary to stop the threat.
The problem is that the RKBA crowd want to get more guns on the streets via liberalised CCW laws and the "licence to murder laws" which change the definiton of self-defence to allow for the use of deadly force in situations where it is not justifiable under common law.
No one has the right to deadly force, especially if one wishes to link this to the right of militia members to "keep and bear arms". We have two separate concepts working here: Militia service and self-defence. Every common law jurisdiction has the heritage of these two concepts, yet other common law jurisdictions severely restrict the items which can be used for self-defence. Anyone who has been to England or Canada knows that things like pepper spray, mace, stun guns, and especially firearms and not allowed to be possessed for self-defence.
Another thing which I find odd, is that with all this talk about right to life, no one has brought in Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which defines the Right to Life as follows:
1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.
2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.
Opinions can differ on what is a reasonable amount of force, but one thing is certain. The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence. It is for the jury, as ordinary members of the community, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable to use in the circumstances of each case. It is relevant that the defendant was under pressure from an imminent attack and might not have had time to make entirely rational decisions, so the test must balance the objective standard of a reasonable person by attributing some of the subjective knowledge of the defendant, including his or her beliefs as to the surrounding circumstances, even if mistaken. However, even allowing for any mistakes made in a crisis, the amount of force must be proportionate and reasonable given the value of the interests being protected and the harm likely to be caused by use of force. The classic test comes from the Jamaican case of Palmer v The Queen, [1971] AC 814:
The defence of self-defence is one which can be and will be readily understood by any jury. It is a straightforward conception. It involves no abstruse legal thought. ...Only common sense is needed for its understanding. It is both good law and good sense that a man who is attacked may defend himself. It is both good law and good sense that he may do, but may only do, what is reasonably necessary. But everything will depend upon the particular facts and circumstances. ...It may in some cases be only sensible and clearly possible to take some simple avoiding action. Some attacks may be serious and dangerous. Others may not be. If there is some relatively minor attack it would not be common sense to permit some action of retaliation which was wholly out of proportion to the necessities of the situation. If an attack is serious so that it puts someone in immediate peril then immediate defensive action may be necessary. If the moment is one of crisis for someone in imminent danger he may have [to] avert the danger by some instant reaction. If the attack is all over and no sort of peril remains then the employment of force may be by way of revenge or punishment or by way of paying off an old score or may be pure aggression. There may no longer be any link with a necessity of defence... If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.
So, to argue that one has a right to arms for self-defence is a misunderstanding of the common-law concept of self-defence. One only has the right to use as much force is necessary to stop that threat. There is no right to use a firearm if a non-lethal alternative exists that can stop the attack (e.g., pepper spray).
Additionally, one can argue that the right to life means that one cannot be deprived "of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The fifth Amendment specifically states this, which would put it in conflict with the Second Amendment if that allows for the use of deadly force without justification.
To argue that the Second Amendment allows for the ownership of firearms for self-defence is to take both the Second Amendment and the concept of self-defence totally out of context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
