What gives the State the power to kill?

All of the government’s power is supposed to come from the people, and there are definitely people that support the government’s ability to kill, past and present. Though that doesn’t say anything about whether or not the government should have that power.

Nothing. Other than that, the fact that they have more weapons.

The US and the respective States are a nation of laws,not of men.
It is justice which brings the death penalty.We don’t kill for stealing a hamburger,but when one kills without any mitigating circumstances,they forfeit their own life..

Respect for the law, and apathy to participation in your own government is what gives the government the right. In California, that right was removed, by the people. Other states vary from time to time over the death penalty.

In the U.S. we have a government system, by the people, but the number of people who choose to actually participate in making it happen is very small. Most people would rather complain or simply pick and choose which laws to follow, than do anything about it.

@lucillelucillelucille (assuming I’m understanding you properly) It’s a bad idea to justify a philosophical position with a legal writ. That’s backwards. Just because a law exists does not mean that it is a just law. Just think about all the terrible unjust laws governments used to pass (and sometimes still do). Trial by legislation is a good example of unjust laws.

It is a question of philosophy of government but I for one believe that the Declaration of Independence correctly explains the origins of a democratic government’s power.

”...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

I’m watching our current government make overtures to re-instated the death penalty. It is easy to prey on the news of the very depraved criminals and try to capitalized on people’s disgust and horror but the fact is that very few cases are clear cut and law enforcement has frequently been know to prosecute the the most expedient suspects who are not necessarily the right ones.

I am hoping that we never bring the death penalty back. Too many innocent men get killed. Even one is too many.

@fundevogel -One who is governed of his own free will,accepts the laws that govern him.Laws are mirrors of the philosophy of those who give their consent.
If one doesn’t like the laws,one may endeavor to change them by working within the system or by throwing off the yoke of government and starting over.

We the people give our government the power over life and death in certain crimes. Should we? I don’t think so. Most of the other developed nations of the world have long since abandoned capital punishment in favor of life in prison without the possibility of parole for those who can’t be trusted not to kill again. That seems to me a better approach, since DNA testing has proven that the justice system occasionally gets it wrong in capital cases. I would rather turn a guilty person loose than put an innocent one to death.

@lucillelucillelucille There is yet another way, which many people have discovered, and that is the police will only try to enforce the most egregious violations of the law, and therefore they can take their chances by simply ignoring the law with little chance of unfavorable consequences.

@lucillelucillelucille “One who is governed of his own free will,accepts the laws that govern him.Laws are mirrors of the philosophy of those who give their consent.”

That’s only true in the most general sense. Laws that restrict homosexual’s rights most certainly do not reflect my philosophy, but that doesn’t mean I’m going throw up my hands and say the government isn’t fit to govern. I think you know this since you said I could try to change the law, and that in itself shows support for the power of the government and respect for its mechanism, even if I don’t agree with every law.

Our consent. Well, not my consent.

@fundevogel -We are a nation of individuals,not groups.Groups don’t have rights.Individuals have rights.

@lucillelucillelucille You’re going to have to explain how that relates to what I’ve been saying.

@fundevogel-” Laws that restrict homosexual’s rights”
Individuals have rights,not groups.

The death penalty is the preeminent example of justice assuming levied with a fair and even hand

I generally give the wussies the benefit of the doubt – that they really are not faint, limp-wristed, liberal-vamping, and ultimately effete by the thought of a just execution, as much as being punctilious against the possibility of uneven delivery (e.g. ~85% black folk being killed – why?)

The former are despised, the later respected.

The government doesn’t kill – the jury make that decision. The constitution (loosely) requires that all criminal trials be heard by a jury. Your quest for the source is a sound one.

The power of just about any state is derived from an inherent monopoly on violence.

We the people also give the State the right to deprive it’s citizens of their liberty and kill for us by making it legal for the State to conscript men into the armed services. Any thoughts on that? It’s kind of the flip side of the issue, it seems.

@josie The government does not constantly reveals itself as incompetent and corrupt…it is the incompetent and corrupt politicians that have usurped their elected duties that are exposed. The principals of our Government are sound and just, it is the stewards of our doctrines that are led astray and need to be reminded by the constituents as to their want and needs of our great country.

@Cruiser Since we the people keep voting for them, isn’t the final responsibility our own—and that of the even larger crowd that can’t even be bothered to cast a vote?

Ultimately a state has the power to execute because it can. The principle of government by consent of the governed is a relatively recent innovation. Originally, kings ruled by “divine right”. Warrants for execution were issued in the name of the crown, with implied consent of the divinity.

@ETpro That depends on if you cast the vote or not. Very few politicians are elected with a majority vote since a large percentage of the eligible voting base stays home on election day. So we are represented by the prettiest and popular candidates with the common denominator last name and it is simply a matter of time before “K” street calls in its stakes to be honored and the cycle begins anew.

@ETpro and @Cruiser The final responsibility is still our own. Citizens who fail to vote and otherwise participate in the democratic process are at least, if not more responsible for the quality of our elected officials, the quality of our political process and the legislative process and it’s results as people who do vote.

A gun.

@Cruiser I have a strong suspicion that if 100% of the eligible voters voted every election, the prettiest, slickest, bumper-sticker spewingest would have an even stronger grasp on power.

What gives anyone the power to kill?

@ETpro more voters do not give them more power…“K” street does that! Follow the money!

@Cruiser Americans get as good a government as they ask for, demand and work towards, they just don’t ask for demand, or work for very much. If they did, we would see it. They need to haul their asses off the couch and out from in front of the T.V and demand better government. The American people could make their elected officials accountable to them and not to “K” street if they were willing to make the effort. They are simply not willing to make the effort.

@Cruiser I completely agree with @lillycoyote. It feels much better to blame stupid politicians, corrupt K street, not-voting neighbors. Anybody but me. But is voters really got engaged and cared about what was going on, they would soon KNOW which politicans are acting stupidly and who on K street is tossing coorporate money around to subvert the government to their own interests.

What @Ivan said. I’d love an answer to that question.

@lillycoyote You are correct.

The legislative branch and the electric power company.

@SmashTheState

I own a gun. Does that mean I have the right to kill?

Presumably, the powers of the more democratically-inclined States are those granted to it by its citizens.

@CaptainHarley I dare say that you are permitted to kill in defense of your life and property. May vary by state. When in doubt, use smaller calibers in higher volumes.

@Ivan Physics.

LMAO @Nullo

I suppose that’s why democracy is participatory, yes? : D

@CaptainHarley

“Political power comes from the end of a gun.” — Mao Tse Tung

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force.” — George Washington

Both Mao and Washington seem to be in agreement that it is a gun which gives the State its mandate to exist. Government is whatever body is best able to organize violent force. If the body of government wasn’t the best at organizing violence, then whatever body was better at organizing violence would be the government.

You have a gun? Great. The State has more, and bigger ones. That’s why the State is the State and you’re its victim, and not the other way around.

If a State has the right to kill in the name of serving “the people” of the State, does that mean that if it ever executes an innocent person, that all of the citizens of that State are obligated to stand trial for murder?

the military and the police and support workers and politicians and voters who support the regieme

@SmashTheState

We’re closer on this issue than you might think.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” ~ Patrick Henry

@gorillapaws I may be splitting hairs here, but I don’t think that executing the wrong person can be called murder, rather like the way that imprisoning the wrong person isn’t the same as kidnapping them.
Some people like to use ‘murder’ where it doesn’t apply because it sounds worse.

Thank you for clarifying @lucillelucillelucille

So when you said:
“We are a nation of individuals,not groups.Groups don’t have rights.Individuals have rights.”

You were protesting my comment that:
“Laws that restrict homosexuals’ rights most certainly do not reflect my philosophy”

And you think I was incorrect to claim homosexuals were entitled to rights because:
“Individuals have rights,not groups.”

So ultimately your problem with my statement was that I’m wrong to think that homosexuals are individuals and therefore have rights? You’re saying homosexuals are an indivisible unit of homosexuality and thus not entitled to the rights of an individual? Weird, I was so sure I’d met a lot of homosexual individuals here and in person. I wonder what other insoluble social groups I’ve mistaken for individuals. What about Twilight fans, are they real people? Are there individual black people and handicapped people or are they just groups too? Can black people get married?

If the problem is that homosexuals as a group don’t have the right to get married we can keep homosexual group-marriages illegal and allow individual homosexuals to get married. I guess there aren’t any, but if there were they would be entitled to the right get married, you know, since if there were such a thing as individual homosexuals they would obviously have rights like any other individual.

I think I understand now, but tell me if I’ve gotten anything wrong.

Dear god – how often do questions on this website get off into the weeds with homosexuality? Is there an equivalent to Godwin’s law, but for homosexuality?

@ipso, I know, I that’s why I had to ask her to clarify her meaning. I considered that this might have been what she meant when she originally made the comment…but it seemed too weird to be true.

@Nullo Murder is legally defined as “Intentional homicide (the taking of another person’s life), without legal justification or provocation.” It’s arguable that there is no legal justification for killing an innocent person, and therefore the charge of Murder would apply.

Your kidnapping counterexample doesn’t quite fit, because when someone is kidnapped, they are basically terrorized, and in constant fear for their life. When one is falsely imprisoned, there is a reasonable assumption of safety (although it’s still a dangerous place). The falsely imprisoned never has to fear that the state will arbitrarily decide to rape/murder them at any given point.

@gorillapaws I think that you’re missing my point.