> > Why? I think that once you've lost your right
> to life (the single most fundamental human
> right), you have pretty much lost your right to
> privacy. That's a decision you make when you
> make the choice to murder another. I have
> very little sympathy for the rights of convicted
> murderers. Commiting first-degree murder
> shows that you have very little regard for the
> basic rights of others, and at that point you've
> violated the social contract and need to be
> removed from society.
>
> Why do we have laws against cruel and
> unusual punishment? It's one thing to allow
> victims to watch an execution, it's another to
> broadcast it to the millions on television.

I have no desire to see an execution. Nevertheless, I believe that executions in countries that have such laws should be public, for some of the same reasons that Stephen thinks so.

Stephen makes a good point about a murderer giving up certain rights because of a violation of "the social contract" (which I do not believe in), but I would make his point even more specific. A murderer's execution is, arguably, the just penalty for murder; taking another's life forfeits one's own right to life. This appllies to privacy as well: a murderer does not commit a private act, as murder is a crime against an individual as well as a crime against a nation or people group. Because the act has both individual and public ramifications, it should also have individual and public consequences.

I don't believe that "cruel and unusual punishment" applies in this case; all people in a given society should be able to see an execution, because a murder is a crime not only against the familial relatives, but also against social relatives. Therefore, the right to private death is revoked along with the right to life.

In general, I agree with Stephen about the principle of "seeing the consequences" of our choices, laws, and punishments. If one really believes that execution is a just punishment, then one should be willing to see the consequences of that system of justice. If war is a just and right course, one is not excused from knowing about the consequences in terms of death to loved ones, country (-persons?), and innocent civilians, as well as the fact of death in war in general.

This is one of the reasons that I believe that women who choose to get an abortion (and men involved in such cases) should watch an abortion before they can undergo the procedure. Even if one believes the legal right to have an abortion is a moral one, then one should not be spared the emotional consequences of such a choice. I think that a consistent application of Stephen's principle forces this conclusion, as it may in other circumstances.

frum