The legal definition of self-defense (which I believe is the exception you're thinking of) is indeed too narrow to encompass the lifeboat case. The law permits you to defend yourself against attackers who are themselves violating the law, not to harm people who just happen to be so positioned as to threaten your safety.
Anyway, I don't disagree with you on policy here; I'm just questioning whether the opposing view is actually "crazy," or merely built on a different value system from my own.
On the point about whether criminal law can be used to express disapproval, there is some difference I think you're overlooking between expressing "We disapprove of this act" and "We have a legitimate interest in preventing this act, and that interest can only be adequately protected if there are as many legal barriers as possible in the way of its violation."
For example, the Israeli Supreme Court a few years back dealt with a case pertaining to whether Israeli law could permit torture (which was absolutely forbidden by human rights treaties) under specific circumstances. The argument was that the ban ought to be excepted in situations where, for example, numerous lives were immediately threatened, torture was likely to be effective (and no alternative was), and the torturee was known to be the responsible party. The court decided that no generalized exception was appropriate -- that if anybody did violate the law under such circumstances, they should still be subjected to the criminal justice process, and if it wasn't appropriate to convict, that had to be determined on the facts of that case. The law could not contain any generalized allowance for torture, even if very specific circumstances might be sufficiently compelling to justify non-enforcement.
Truth be told, I think it's a fine result. There are probably circumstances under which I'd decline to punish someone for acts of torture, but I think a blanket prohibition is a perfectly appropriate starting point. In particular, I think an individual who chooses to torture someone should know that he's violating the law, and that he'll be forced to plead for mercy only on the facts of his own situation. I think a law that imposed *any* lesser degree of restraint on him would not be doing its job.
And I don't think that stance is at all incompatible with a free society.
no subject
Anyway, I don't disagree with you on policy here; I'm just questioning whether the opposing view is actually "crazy," or merely built on a different value system from my own.
On the point about whether criminal law can be used to express disapproval, there is some difference I think you're overlooking between expressing "We disapprove of this act" and "We have a legitimate interest in preventing this act, and that interest can only be adequately protected if there are as many legal barriers as possible in the way of its violation."
For example, the Israeli Supreme Court a few years back dealt with a case pertaining to whether Israeli law could permit torture (which was absolutely forbidden by human rights treaties) under specific circumstances. The argument was that the ban ought to be excepted in situations where, for example, numerous lives were immediately threatened, torture was likely to be effective (and no alternative was), and the torturee was known to be the responsible party. The court decided that no generalized exception was appropriate -- that if anybody did violate the law under such circumstances, they should still be subjected to the criminal justice process, and if it wasn't appropriate to convict, that had to be determined on the facts of that case. The law could not contain any generalized allowance for torture, even if very specific circumstances might be sufficiently compelling to justify non-enforcement.
Truth be told, I think it's a fine result. There are probably circumstances under which I'd decline to punish someone for acts of torture, but I think a blanket prohibition is a perfectly appropriate starting point. In particular, I think an individual who chooses to torture someone should know that he's violating the law, and that he'll be forced to plead for mercy only on the facts of his own situation. I think a law that imposed *any* lesser degree of restraint on him would not be doing its job.
And I don't think that stance is at all incompatible with a free society.