Were the London Police Justified in Killing Jean Charles de Menezes?

[john5746]

I'd be rather uneasy to base weather someone lives or dies on which way uses less resources...

 

It's actually a good basis, if you have no problem with taking lives. I like the idea of capital punishment, if it saves money. I don't think it punishes very well - torture would be better. I don't think it is an effective deterrent. I just don't think I should pay to keep garbage like that alive.

[ku]

Gary Becker, a Nobel-prize winning economist (A UC economist, in fact) believes that fines are superior to jail. Fines certainly are a deterrant because nobody likes to loose money and costs of transferring money is much lower than jail or even torture costs.

 

If the probability that a given man is a bomber is sufficiently high (given appearance, demeanor, positive ID, etc.), he should be killed simply based on the likelihood that x lives might be lost if no action is taken. If this situation occurs multiple times, the ratio of correct assessments to incorrect ones made by the police should be taken into account and future action should be adjusted appropriately. So, really the question is: can the police effectively measure the relevant probability/threat level?

The view presented above may seem objective but really it is based on value judgments. The sentiment above is based on utilitarianism. A person should be sacrificed and suffer if his suffering results in other people being satisfied to a greater extent. But this differs to another competing value, that of Pareto optimality. “A set of alternative allocations and a set of individuals, a movement from one alternative allocation to another that can make at least one individual better off, without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement.” Utilitarianism is more collectivist than the Pareto optimality value, which is more individualistic.

 

Imagine one person has a body organ that, if taken out and put into other people, can save 10 lives. However, that person from whom the organ was taken will die if this happens. Some people here argue that killing the bomber was right based on expected deaths versus expected lives saved. This analogy I'm presenting is simpler in that there are no mathematical expectations. Killing one individual will save ten lives. Some people would argue that it's okay to kill him. Communists, who believe that individuals should sacrifice themselves to the state and society will agree with this. Those who emphasize the good of the whole as opposed to the good and the rights of the individual will argue this. Others, however, will believe that what matters are choice and freedom. The man with the vital organ should only give up his own organs if he wants to, regardless of the needs of others ("Each according to his needs..."). It is his choice. It is his freedom to live, to be safe, to be free, and to be productive ("life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"). It is his own right to live as a means to himself and not be sacrificed for society.

[Severian]

It emerged today that the Police were lying. He didn't look suspicious and he didn't run from the police, or jump the turnstyle or anything. All he did was run for the train. They just grabbed him and shot him 8 times in the head.

 

I think they should crucify the cops responsible.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4159310.stm

 

I voted no by the way. Can anyone who voted yes justify their decision in the light of the new info?

[Pangloss]

I've seen the stories about the new info as well, but I think we should still wait for the full story to come out before drawing conclusions. Just speaking for myself, I feel that I took the discussion too far earlier and I want to be careful about making the same mistake twice.