As I said, we agree in principle.

Not really. The only principle we have agreed on is that there must be a punishment attached to crime and that sexual abuse constitutes a crime. We differ significantly on the approach to what constitutes a justifiable penalty for this particular abrogation of the law in which I will term informal prosecution (caught in the act) and formal prosecution (jury verdict). But as I said before, it's a matter of degrees on which we will both be right and we will both be wrong.

I think the one thing we will agree on is the hope neither of us or our loved ones is put in the situation. I for one would rather this remain a hypothetical situation.

How very true. Misfiring synapses. Throws all rational though out the window. :-)

Moral equiv. does not always translate to a rational jury verdict; you still go to jail, I don't, and - in either case - the abuser is stopped.
In principle, we agree.

But that is the whole point: defense of someone is not and can never be morally equivalent to murder. If that were not so, soldiers and law enforcement officers could be prosecuted for murder in the line of their duties. There is no moral, legal or rational equivalence between murder and self-defense - even if it is the defense of others. One is proactive, the other reactive.

I would support complete castration also as a penalty, just so you know.

Certainnly no more premeditation than with murder. Interesting argument, but it sounds a bit rationaliistic. I would rather not take the chance of being accused of murder and doing something less that will still stop the abuse.

He should feel safer, but then liberals are not rational beings, therefore, he looked scared.

I don't follow. Are you attempting to say that killing a sexual predator while in the act is equivalent to murder? No competent district attorney is going to press for a conviction based on that because at the very minimum it fails the premeditation test. At most you're going to have to prove extenuating circumstances just to get a manslaughter charge.

I would also point out that your advocacy of "optimal harm" is a severe legal liability, because it is an admission that you looked past the offense to apply your own standard of retribution upon the perpetrator. You are then making a calculated judgement - premeditation - on just how much damage you should inflict on them. If I was a prosecuting attorney, this is motive and premeditation for intentional harm. At a minimum I could get you for battery, and I could even go so far as to argue that it would constitute torture because you are inflicting pain with the intent to make them suffer. Yes, you are going to have mitigating circumstances, but legally and morally, the course of action you propose is far more fraught with legal peril.

It is more about what you falsely think you saw.
Just look at your last statement: I never said anything about letting the abuser initiate force. I'm not playing such a game; I can only ask that you try harder to hear what I have said.

I believe I have. what do you think I have missed that would change my viewpoint?

you're making my case. Why be accused of something that warrents capital punishment? And why jeopardize the life of your child further by her not having a dad around?

"Optimal" is a subjective term. It is an argument of degrees. We can both be right and both be wrong.

I view murder (pre-meditated) to be an act worthy of capital punishment because it takes a life and all of its productivity away from family and society. Such acts inflict extreme emotional duress even on the survivors - for the rest of their lives. Murder hurts more than just the one murdered, and so can not be tolerated in a society which values life.

In my view, sexual abuse is nearly as bad, only the victim is still alive to deal with their ordeal. It will still haunt them for their entire lives - even with good counseling. And it will affect anyone who has a relationship with that person - especially a spouse or children. That person's offspring will be affected, poisoning the well so to speak for all of society. An act with such a long-lasting and broad reaching effect can not be handled so casually as you imply without risking the debasement and devaluation of quality of life itself - second only to life. How is one supposed to pursue happiness in life with such a spectre hanging over them?

No. In my opinion, the damage is worthy of capital punishment - even from my Christian perspective. For an Objectivist, this should be even more clear-cut.

I have answered every question - don't just read selected responses. I've given principled responses, not emotional ones like some others.
But it is always difficult to get a point across when the listening is having the emotions get in the way of listening.

People ask you questions which you ignore and babble more.

You do not want to debate or discuss you want to make pronouncements...

So yes Troll You are irrelevant...your favorite adjective

That sure proves your argument!

Sorry the only things proven irrelevant in this thread are you and your posts

Buh bye Troll

"Optimal": best choice - not minimal, not maximum.

Question is irrelevant. Just stick to the fact that one should do what is necessary, not more without significant repercussions.

Optimal Harm - interesting phrase

Define it if you can

Have you ever been in a situation where you had to defend yourself from severe physical harm or death?

Kill him and go to jail - your choice.
Or think rationally and just do optimal harm.

I would recommend that you spend a couple of weeks in family courts watching the slow parade of abusers and abused and review your attempts to rationalize this. Abuse lasts a lifetime and should not be condoned to any degree - least of all sexual abuse.

If I caught anyone abusing any of my kids, my 1911 would have words with that individual right there, right then.

It is pretty doggone hard to get a conviction for first degree murder, because you have to prove motive, opportunity, and action. Motive is the key. And let's not forget that it precludes "heat-of-the-moment" items, which are second-degree murder.

And serving on a jury is WAY harder than voting. remember that a jury decision has to be unanimous. That means twelve "angry men" (pardon to Henry Fonda) from various walks of life all have to agree. And I absolutely object to the idea that we can't execute 99 guilty people because we might get 1 who is innocent. That's the sort of mentality that liberals use to crowd the prisons and petition for emotional pleas.

It is not a right. It is the rule of law. There MUST be a penalty affixed to the abridgement of law or the law means nothing. And the penalty must be appropriate to the offense both to provide a deterrent but also to act as a tool of reformation and to protect from further abrogation.

The argument presented by murder and its punishment is what the appropriate penalty is. The act is very clear - it is the violation of the most primal, basic right of another - the right to life. In my opinion, the punishment for pre-meditated murder should be the forfeiture of life of the murderer. The state only carries out the punishment agreed upon by its empowerment: it is an agent - not an arbiter. That is what some people get confused. They view the law as the originator of punishment, rather than the agent. If we accept natural law, we accept that the punishment is affixed independently of the agent, but that it exists nonetheless.

Actually I think it was Thomas Hobbes that argued that the right to self-defense is so fundamental that it doesn't disappear in the face of a just conviction for a capital crime. In other words, even if you murder somebody and are found guilty and put on death row, the state should expect you to try to escape or to defend your life when its representatives come to take it. And that you have the right to do so.

Now THAT's an extreme view of the right of self defense.

You haven't read this discussion very carefully....

so we should let people who are unable to defend themselves, for some reason, have force initiated against them?
Haven't you ever heard of the concept of the Paladin? The one who comes to the aid of the helpless facing an aggressor? Does that concept have no weight or meaning for you?