Quote Originally Posted by Johanna
If you found out about this, and you knew that innocent people had died as a result of his actions, would you want to convict him as a traitor and:

a) shoot him, OR
b) just put him in prison?
What would you do?
Now I don't understand you. You were very clear and straightforward that criminals should not be put to death -- even if they killed a lot of people, and there is incontrovertible evidence that they are guilty -- they plead guilty, they show the place(s) where they buried their victim(s), etc. You said that it was a matter of principle, like Crocodile says, we have no right to kill humans. So why would there be any excuse to judge and kill people in war time? Where's the difference? They're still human beings, supposedly. And war could start any minute -- I mean wars are being waged all the time, just not in Europe at the moment.

I would say that war is actually an excuse, a mitigating circumstance -- in peace time you can be "good" easily -- in war time your country asks you to sacrifice your life, to be a hero on a daily basis -- not everyone can do it. During WWII the Soviet soldiers captured by the Germans were considered traitors, so that even if they survived the inhuman conditions of concentration camps they might come home to be labelled a "traitor" and go staright to another camp. There was another directive/order of Stalin that said any soldier who failed to go into attack -- even if it meant going against tanks with your bare hands and imminent death -- could be shot on the spot. And the families of the "traitors" could be prosecuted too.

So, anyway, I don't understand your logic. Here I am, trying to come round to your understanding that we should be oh so human and spare the lives of those who failed to follow human laws and who don't care a fig about other people's lives. And you say in war it doesn't apply. Do we stop being humans just because crackpot leaders of our countries decided to go to war? How moral is it to kill the enemy? Those soldiers are humans too. And much less culpable because they may be sent to war against their will -- in Russia conscription is still mandatory for all young men. Why should the enemy be killed?

I have to say I'm totally puzzled. If your main gripe with death penalty is the possibility of mistake or even wilful abuse then I can understand it -- though nothing is more certain in war, on the contrary, there is more commotion and less time.