Murdering Police Should be a Federal Capital Offense

[Leonhard]

Why shouldn't murdering anyone be a capitol offense if you think execution is morally right?

I ditto Cow Poke on this one.

Why is the life of a police officer worth more than mine?

This question contains a mistake. Its not that a police officer's life is worth more. All humans have the same dignity and right to life. It has something to do with the dignity of the office of a police officer. They are there to protect civic order, to prevent discord, and keep the peace. Therefore if they can be shot as easily for anyone, it would kinda defeat their purpose. That's why they're given more leeway, more privilege, and are protected more, because of the service they provide.

I think Cow Poke agrees these privileges shouldn't be abused.

[Cow Poke]

I ditto Cow Poke on this one.



This question contains a mistake. Its not that a police officer's life is worth more. All humans have the same dignity and right to life. It has something to do with the dignity of the office of a police officer. They are there to protect civic order, to prevent discord, and keep the peace. Therefore if they can be shot as easily for anyone, it would kinda defeat their purpose. That's why they're given more leeway, more privilege, and are protected more, because of the service they provide.

I think Cow Poke agrees these privileges shouldn't be abused.

Yeah - to all that.

[Joel]

I ditto Cow Poke on this one.



This question contains a mistake. Its not that a police officer's life is worth more. All humans have the same dignity and right to life. It has something to do with the dignity of the office of a police officer. They are there to protect civic order, to prevent discord, and keep the peace. Therefore if they can be shot as easily for anyone, it would kinda defeat their purpose. That's why they're given more leeway, more privilege, and are protected more, because of the service they provide.

I think Cow Poke agrees these privileges shouldn't be abused.

My comment on this earlier in the thread was "I'm also wary of treating murder of police officers differently from other murders. It reinforces the appearance that the state is more interested in its own welfare than in protecting and serving the people."

One could argue opposite to you that police officers, if they have been charged with the lofty purpose of enforcing justice, then if anything they should be held to a higher standard, not less. That would mean giving them less leeway. If the law is just, then the job of enforcing the law is to enforce justice, so then to give leeway (i.e., not to hold police to the same law) is to allow police leeway to commit injustice. But since they are entrusted to be the ones to enforce justice, if anything they should not be given leeway, but should be treated even harsher than an ordinary citizen who commits the same injustice, for in addition to the same guilt as the ordinary citizen the officer would have also betrayed the trust placed in him.

But we are talking about the other direction: crime committed against police vs the same crime committed against an ordinary civilian, which is what my earlier comment addressed. The police are agents of the state. And the state is supposed to exist to serve and protect the people. In which case the state ought to hold that purpose higher than that of protecting its own interests. That would imply that the state may protect its agents as it protects every citizen, but not more.

In practice we find that states do subvert their purpose. As Murray Rothbard put it,

"We may test the hypothesis that the State is largely interested in protecting itselfitself? The gravest crimes in the State's lexicon are almost invariably not invasions of private person or property, but dangers to its own contentment, for example, treason, desertion of a soldier to the enemy, failure to register for the draft, subversion and subversive conspiracy, assassination of rulers and such economic crimes against the State as counterfeiting its money or evasion of its income tax. Or compare the degree of zeal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman, with the attention that the State pays to the assault of an ordinary citizen. Yet, curiously, the State's openly assigned priority to its own defense against the public strikes few people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d'etre."
Murray Rothbard, "Anatomy of the State", section "What the State Fears"
https://mises.org/library/anatomy-state/html/c/35

Even when the state punishes a crime against a private citizen, it treats it as a crime against the state. The trial treats it as a dispute between the state and the accused (e.g. "The State vs Wilson"), and the punishment as a debt owed to the state (or euphemistically referring to itself as "to society"), rather than to the victim. Typically if the true aggrieved party wants restitution, they must file a civil suit or use private arbitration.

Thus it is the interest of restoring the proper order and purpose of government that I suggest that crimes against police officers should be treated the same.

[The Thinker]

There are degrees of murder, and not all killing is "murder".

Agreed, then why shouldn't 1st degree murder get the death penalty for anyone if you support the death penalty? Same with 2nd degree murder, and so on?

Because they actually have a useful purpose.

Then it should be legal to kill theistic fanatics.

I'm certainly against advocating the murder of any person "just because".

Great, but it is still legal to do so. It happens everyday online.

I know this may come as an extreme shock to you, but there are MILLIONS of people ranting about all kinds of things on the internet. If only Al Gore hadn't invented it!

I'm fully aware of that....nothing in my sentence implies that I deny non-conservatards rant about killing on the internet.

[The Thinker]

This question contains a mistake. Its not that a police officer's life is worth more. All humans have the same dignity and right to life. It has something to do with the dignity of the office of a police officer. They are there to protect civic order, to prevent discord, and keep the peace. Therefore if they can be shot as easily for anyone, it would kinda defeat their purpose. That's why they're given more leeway, more privilege, and are protected more, because of the service they provide.

I think Cow Poke agrees these privileges shouldn't be abused.

Still makes no sense. If the penalty for killing X is higher than killing Y, then X's life is worth more. I get your general point, and I see the logic behind it, but I don't like what it implies.

[Sparko]

Since police are in contact with violent criminals more than ordinary citizens, and they are charged with protecting the citizens from these violent criminals, it makes logical sense to make the criminals as reluctant as possible to resist and attack the police. Therefore a stricter penalty for harming police accomplishes that goal. It benefits the police, but also the general population because we are safer when the police are safer and able to get criminals off the street without being killed themselves.

[Joel]

Since police are in contact with violent criminals more than ordinary citizens, and they are charged with protecting the citizens from these violent criminals, it makes logical sense to make the criminals as reluctant as possible to resist and attack the police. Therefore a stricter penalty for harming police accomplishes that goal. It benefits the police, but also the general population because we are safer when the police are safer and able to get criminals off the street without being killed themselves.

I don't think your conclusion follows from your premises. At most your reasoning here could get you is that there should be a "strict" penalty. To make police safe you just need a strict penalty (not "stricter"). Its relative strict-ness to other cases is not relevant.

Also if the strict penalty deters crime against police, then surely the same penalty in the other cases would also deter crime in the other cases. And if crime is deterred against the general population, that would mean less contact between police and violent criminals, and thus also make police safer.

[Sparko]

I don't think your conclusion follows from your premises. At most your reasoning here could get you is that there should be a "strict" penalty. To make police safe you just need a strict penalty (not "stricter"). Its relative strict-ness to other cases is not relevant.

Also if the strict penalty deters crime against police, then surely the same penalty in the other cases would also deter crime in the other cases. And if crime is deterred against the general population, that would mean less contact between police and violent criminals, and thus also make police safer.

Another factor is that you need to counteract the fact that cop killers get high status in prison so there is an incentive to kill cops especially if you know you are going down anyway

[rogue06]

Another factor is that you need to counteract the fact that cop killers get high status in prison so there ha an incentive to kill coos especially if you know you are going down anyway

FWIU the two types of criminals with the highest status in prison are murderers (unless they kill children -- especially their own children) and con men.

The first because everyone is scared of them and the second because they are far more intelligent than the average con.

[Catholicity]

I thought killing a police officer was an automatic 1st degree murder. Or maybe that's just the state of North Carolina

[Terraceth]

Don't judges tend to give higher sentences to cop killers anyway?

[Cow Poke]

Don't judges tend to give higher sentences to cop killers anyway?

Not all judges are pro law enforcement.