Death punishment in the WC-universe

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sonntag

Spaceman
I always wondered why there is still Death punishment in the Wing Commander Universe. Well certainly it is wartime, but even today, no industrial country with the exeption of the US has Death punishment anymore, so why was that never changed? I personally found it absolutely inacceptable that Blair was executed in WC4 when losing in the end, and I think the same was supposed for Tolwyn...

So Black Lance = Evil Space Nazis

Death Punishment = OK

I think this is kind of a double morale...
 
but in the scenario where blair was exicuted war was declared on the borderworlds. so it was wartime. and military justice is harsher than civillian.
 
It's okay to kill people because they're evil. It's not okay to kill them because you see them as inferior. If you don't understand that, you're probably deranged.
 
Originally posted by KrisV
It's okay to kill people because they're evil. It's not okay to kill them because you see them as inferior. If you don't understand that, you're probably deranged.

Killing people, regardless of their character, is NOT okay. I think that NO human may judge who has the right to live and who has not. Therefore I oppose Death punishment.

Regards,

Michael
 
I'd be willing to bet that most current militaries shoot traitors.

Whether or not such punishment is moral is a debate we shalln't be having here -- but you must see that there's an obvious difference between executing someone for being a traitor and slaughtering millions because they're genetically inferior...
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF

Whether or not such punishment is moral is a debate we shalln't be having here -- but you must see that there's an obvious difference between executing someone for being a traitor and slaughtering millions because they're genetically inferior...

Yes you are right. But as the whole WC story is fictitios, I think we should not debate the question whether it was right to intend to execute Tolwyn. I just generally think that Death punishment should be a thing of the past.
 
if tolwyn hadn't died the blacklance remnents might have broke him out and he might have found ways of continuing his campaign of death.
 
Originally posted by $tormin
if tolwyn hadn't died the blacklance remnents might have broke him out and he might have found ways of continuing his campaign of death.

I think that confed would have found a place guarded well enough to avoid that (the black lance people weren't that many, either)

But maybe he would have turned into a martyr if he stayed imprisoned for a long time, still I think it was wrong to plan to execute him (as it was wrong to do the same thing with Jazz)
 
This make me wonder one thing.
If in the traitors are killed in wc, why wasn't blair killed when he was convinced to be one in wc2 ? Maybe there was no proofs or something ?
 
It's true that most countries don't have the death penalty now, but a 30 year war might change perspectives somewhat.
 
Perhaps it wouldnt have mattered for tolwyn... he committed suicide in the end anyway, but was it because of the shame he had to face or the fact that he was going to die anyway?

With regard to the death penalty, you would surprised how inaccurate a jury or panel of judges can be. i am studying psychology and just read about this stuff last night.... generally with a jury, 90% of the time the majority's opinion ends up becoming a unanimous verdict due to the majority influencing the other jurors. judges have been found to be even harsher that jurors if giving a verdict. its scary how inaccurate people CAN be... especially if it were you being trialed for death. i dont want to overstate anything here though... juries arent THAT bad but they can be improved.
 
Originally posted by The Shadow
Perhaps it wouldnt have mattered for tolwyn... he committed suicide in the end anyway, but was it because of the shame he had to face or the fact that he was going to die anyway?

With regard to the death penalty, you would surprised how inaccurate a jury or panel of judges can be. i am studying psychology and just read about this stuff last night.... generally with a jury, 90% of the time the majority's opinion ends up becoming a unanimous verdict due to the majority influencing the other jurors. judges have been found to be even harsher that jurors if giving a verdict. its scary how inaccurate people CAN be... especially if it were you being trialed for death. i dont want to overstate anything here though... juries arent THAT bad but they can be improved.

i think a computer AI would make a better juror than mere humans. but thats a long way off. and nobody would use one for cases where death penalty is a possibility
 
That's and interesting suggestion, $tormin. However, i believe AI could only be programmed to judge on whether a person broke the law according to the letter of the law. at least human jurors could take into account the emotions, experiences or duress of a person at the time of the crime and i think it is important that this be taken into account when judging a person.

Tolwyn may have been a madman in the end but perhaps it wasnt his fault? he was a war veteran and was perhaps suffering for a few psychological disorders as a result... he really was in the end trying to save mankind from extermination from another species. however, he went about this the wrong way. he started to view actual people simply in terms of, say, chess pieces.... in chess, you sometimes must sacrifice pieces in order to win.
 
Originally posted by The Shadow
That's and interesting suggestion, $tormin. However, i believe AI could only be programmed to judge on whether a person broke the law according to the letter of the law. at least human jurors could take into account the emotions, experiences or duress of a person at the time of the crime and i think it is important that this be taken into account when judging a person.

Shadow this is the very reason NOT to have human jurors, becuase they decide with emotions rather than Logic and the actual truth. Computers do not have the fault of emotion, thus they would be perfect.

On to the DP (death Penatly)
The US is the only industrial nation (I chose idustrial rather than civilized becuase any nation or group of people who have the Civilian DP are by very nation uncivilized) with civilian DP but military DP is a difference in many peoples eyes. I personally see it as this. The DP is fighting an "evil" with just as great an "evil" and breeds the "evil" again. IE by having the deathpenalty you are becoming exactly what you are trying to prevent. Anybody who realizes this and holds life higher than all else cannot be considered anything but the perfect man, IE *caugh* krisv*caugh* not derranged, but perfect. We should not insult a person for these views, we should applaud them for holding life in the highest regard no matter whose. To add any more deaths to the BL incident even if it is the founder and instegator for said incident, is just as large an attrocity as the first death of an innocent. This is the difference between humans and kilrathi.

[Edited by Napoleon on 04-29-2001 at 18:57]
 
i just noticed this but $tormin in your sig you have a quote from Woodrow Wilson Smith, I love the entire universe and I too enjoy several of the quotes in the Notebooks. like the one I have now added to my profile.
 
Napolean i totally agree with your views on the death penalty.

I understand your view on juries and it does make sense. However, i still believe jurors are better at judging cases... they may not be perfect but they do account for the human side of any crime (a crime committed by a human) and this is the reason that jurors are used instead of judges in a trial of a serious crime like murder, because judges can only judge according to the law and this is recognized as being unjust in certain circumstances. a computer would be worse than a judge, viewing the law as absolute. as said in the star trek: the next generation episode "justice": "the law is not absolute, if anything, life itself is an example of exceptions" and "justice is never as simple as a rulebook". i totally agree with these statements.
 
while that holds some truth in it, I must differ because I find that a jury's inherant humanity would get in the way. Like lets say 2 men each rape and kill a little girl. Both girls are caucasian and 1 man is also. the other man is of african decent. In some countries and some area's of other countries the caucasian man would get less of a punishment than the african, ie life in prison vs. death. Or lets say a woman is raped and she then buys a gun and finds the man and kills him in cold blood acting as judge jury and executioner, a jury may decide that she derserves lienency b/c she was raped, but a computer would look at the facts, that she killed the man in cold blood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top