|
July 05, 2010
Tragedy prevention theory
The Detroit Free Press has an article today about a homeowner in the Detroit suburb of Inkster who fatally shot one of two thugs who invaded his home in the wee hours of the morning: An Inkster homeowner fatally shot a man who had broken into his house early this morning, according to police.I'm glad the man had the wherewithal to defend himself after being awakened and slugged at 1:20 in the morning, and I'm glad he deterred the home invader. By killing him, he deterred more than whatever crimes the invader planned to commit in his own house. He also deterred all of the many crimes that this man would have committed in the future. That sort of permanent deterrence is something the state cannot legally do unless a criminal commits murder, but it is a helpful consequence of citizen self-defense. To be fair, I guess some would consider the killing of the invader a tragedy. Because, just as he will never be able to invade houses again, neither will it ever be possible for him to theoretically turn his life around and become a productive member of society -- possibly even someone who would end up helping the world. In balance, though, I think that the dire harm the homeowner prevented outweighs any theoretical good that might possibly have come from a burglar who might have decided to turn over a new leaf. So, even agreeing that it would by definition be tragic to kill a burglar who might have mended his ways, I can accept risking such a theoretical tragedy. posted by Eric on 07.05.10 at 09:49 PM
Comments
The odds of the home invader becoming a rocket scientist or developing some fantastic medical technology are rather small. His danger to the community is immediate. M. Simon · July 6, 2010 10:55 AM The home owner also discouraged potential law breakers. Old Curmudgeon · July 6, 2010 03:03 PM Excellent points, and as to the discouragement of other potential home invaders, I'm now wondering why these cases aren't better reported. Surely the fearless MSM want to discourage home invasions to the maximum extent possible, don't they? Eric Scheie · July 6, 2010 06:07 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
"Shut up," the TSA explained.
Bikini Edition - Obama Version A double standard for superstitious crackpottery? Tragedy prevention theory Too Important Not To Link Alpha deconstructs Cinderella! Happy 4th! Go pursue happiness! The Reason I Come And I Go Is The Same July 4th Bikini Edition 2010 Is Up Guns don't kill people, but ideas do?
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The death of anyone who violates and individual's rights to life, liberty or property is no tragedy.
The governing classes should keep that in mind.