Hacker News Reader

Comment by moistgorilla | Hacker News Reader

When a death row inmate is killed the executioner is without doubt responsible for the death. Just like the judge that sentenced him is responsible. Now whether they were justified or not is a different question (which many would argue there is never good enough justification for the death penalty)

Anyway, it's not interesting, the only thing the parents are responsible for is having a second child and breaking the law. What people do to enforce the law is their responsibility not the responsibility of the parents that broke it, the same applies for the murderer on death row.

Just because something is legal doesn't absolve you of responsibility. The same way soldiers "just following orders" are responsible for the actions they commit at the behest of their superiors. Both the superiors and the soldiers are responsible

View on HN

If you don't consider any punishment the responsibility of a criminal, then I think you're using a different definition of 'responsible' than most people, and this might actually be a semantic argument rather than anything meaningful.

> responsible : having an obligation to do something, or having control over or care for someone, as part of one's job or role.

The criminal is only responsible for breaking the law, the only thing he had control over before he was caught (assuming he was caught for the sake of argument). We as society are responsible for dealing out the punishment.

How could the criminal be responsible for the punishment when he is not the one inflicting it on him/herself.

edit: To make my argument slightly easier to understand I'm going to give an extreme example

Let's say it's illegal to be a certain religion. Is it the insert religion here person's responsibility that he is punished and sent to a death camp?

I think most people would say that if the punishment is justified then the responsibility is transitive.

The punishment being justified depends entirely on whether or not the law itself is just (e.g. capital punishment is largely considered to be a legal injustice). Whether or not responsibility is transitive a separate, but important, matter.

As it turns out, responsibility for statutory laws is only transitive when applied to a party to the statute (e.g. a lawmaker or the enforcer).

A thief is responsible for restitution because depriving someone of their property is violation of natural law. A party who breaks a contract is responsible for fulfilling the terms they agreed to, because they made that agreement.

A thief, or a party who breaks a contract, is not responsible for a _statutory law_ enforced against them (unless they are a law maker or the law enforcer).

The creators and enforcers of the statue are responsible for creating it and enforcing it. They are responsible for its outcome, whether that is a dead murderer or a dead baby.

And if the contract is "you can live and work here if you don't have a baby"? Let's say a hypothetical government doesn't touch the woman, but they insist the woman do something to avoid raising too many children.

Honestly curious: Are you making an argument that laws and punishments for breaking them are wrong across the board? Or are you saying that the laws might be just in some cases, and the punishment a necessary evil, but that even in those cases you think it's important to place responsibility on the enforcers of those laws?

The latter. If people took responsibility for their actions I believe injustices like forced abortions wouldn't happen as often. I can imagine it's very easy for somebody that is forcing a woman to have an abortion at 8.5 months pregnant to rationalize away what they are doing as upholding the law and that the government is responsible for what is happening.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com