Libéralisme vs peine de mort

[fare]

La question de la peine de mort divise les libéraux. Voici ma réponse à un lecteur du QL qui s'enquiert de la position libérale sur le sujet, au titre de mes réflections approfondies sur le Droit libéral.

Comments

Proportionality, Schmoportionality

[fare]

I loathe the absurd concept of a "principle of proportionality" in war. Proportionality is a great principle in a court of justice, to negociate a peace between parties who both seek a common modus vivendi. But war is precisely what happens when things break down and there is no more mutual will to make peace. An enemy is fair game. Kill him, torture him, maim him, rape him, burn his house, whatever.

Of course, there are principles of economics and morality in war: don't take more risks than necessary, try to not arouse more bad feelings in others than you need, try not to harm potential innocents, don't degrade yourself into a monster, don't burn a house you could sell instead, don't make your enemy worse than he already is, avoid making new enemies, keep open options for a real peace (as opposed to a "hudna"), etc. But these are things you owe to yourself. They are not in any conceivable way a debt due to the enemy. The enemy has no right but the right to die slowly and painfully. Anything better is a priviledge unilaterally granted and arbitrarily revokable (though conventions might bind you to allies to behave well least they stop backing you or which is worse switch sides).

Only innocents are due respect, and only marginal doubt as to their guilt might protect suspects or convicts accused of being outlaws.