ML, that argument presupposes that the state is welching on an implied deal it made with the people, that the serious crimes would be met with the dp.
Posted by
Loyola
Nov 11 '09, 15:44
|
Even if you step into that argument and accept that it has merit, you also have to accept that the state is welching, not on all the people, but of a segment thereof.
So say it's 1770 or whenever America broke from Britain, assuming the dp was available across all colonies, you can't say the state is today welching on that "deal" when that deal itself was in effect to placate a segment of the population into being governed by promising to carry out their particular brand of vengeance. Even back then, there would be a % of the population who would have been against the dp, however small that % might have been, and so you could equally say, that whatever that % was, today's reversal of the carrying out of the dp in certain states, is in fact an inducement from the government to the governed to recognise the legitimacy of the state at hand as manifested currently.
|