I have tried to stay away from my normal rambling style with this one. As I said I would do in my last post, I have invited Izzy over to take a look at what I have written. Hopefully she will be able to. We shall see.
(Since I’m an American, and those are the laws I am familiar with, this is colored towards them.)
The death penalty. There are few things that cause more debate than that. The vast majority of us stand on one side, or the other, of this debate. Another blogger that I read regularly, Izzy, a few days ago wrote about why she is against capital punishment. Chief among her reasons was a perceived moral superiority of the executing society and the barbarity of the act itself. She even goes as far as to state that individuals who support the death penalty feel that they, themselves, are morally superior. I’m sorry Izzy, I love to read your work, and we share similar views on several things you have written about. But, it appears that here we disagree.
The death penalty, in and of itself, is not murder. It is a consequence of breaking laws enacted to protect others from serious, and harmful, crimes that are considered, for lack of a better word, evil. There is no moral superiority in the enacting of these laws, nor in the punishment chosen for them. It is a deterrent, nothing more, nothing less. And failure to carry out the sentences would undermine that. The people that commit the crime know the possible consequences for their action, should they get caught.
“Let he who has sin cast the first stone, and we are all born guilty. In the eyes of God, and under the benevolent covenants of human rights (as opposed to malevolent state laws), no one has the right.” You are correct here. But, what about those that commit true murder. People will kill each other, its human nature and a consequence of our free will and emotions. If it wasn’t for the deterrent effect of capital punishment, how many more murders would there be? What would you suggest as an alternative? Term prison sentences or perhaps just life imprisonment? When someone doesn’t have the fear of losing their own life there is less deterrence. “The wider philosophy of society demanding the sacrifice of the life of one man for the good of others is dangerous, and to derive directly from Ayn Rand, [no human being] should be the means to an end for the welfare of others.” But, aren’t the people that commit these crimes using it as a mean to their ends? Societies have the right to protect themselves, and the people in them, from that very thing. There is no demand of sacrifice, only a request to follow the law so that we don’t tear ourselves apart. Being a part of a society is like when you were a kid living at home. You want to live there, then you have to follow the rules, for the mutual benefit of all concerned.
I am a Californian and am for the execution of “Tookie” Williams. I was growing up when he committed the acts for which he was convicted of and remember them. Even after he was put into prison, he still continued to run his gang, it wasn’t until after he lost his last appeal that he “reformed”. The death penalty only had its true effect when it became a reality to him. As for Van Nguyen, all I know of that case is that he was a drug trafficker who had the misfortune of getting caught in a country that executes them. I feel no sympathy. Drugs destroy people, plain and simple. They kill. Granted, it is more like suicide than murder, but those responsible should pay a price for benefiting from killing others.
There is no way, that I can see, where you can compare 9/11, war in Afghanistan and Iraq with the death penalty. The death penalty is a consequence of breaking a law of a society that protects that same society. The attacks on my country on September 11th 2001 were from an outside organization that wants to destroy us because they believe they are better. It was mass murder, plain and simple. The resulting war in Afghanistan could have been avoided. The government of Afghanistan was offered the opportunity to hand over those responsible for trial. If they hadn’t refused, there would have been no war. But, they didn’t and there is. Iraq, well, that may have been a mistake; it may have been an intelligence failure. I really didn’t care. And for the average Iraqi, their life has been improved, even with the violence that is going on.
(Yes, my views on the wars are very biased. But, everyone is biased to one extent, or another. But I want to take a moment to explain myself here. I firmly believe that the Untied States is the greatest country in the world. No where else can compare. And yes, I have lived in several other countries, and enjoyed each one. But I always wanted to come home. I have been a soldier for 17 years and feel our actions, in both Afghanistan and Iraq, were justified. Yes, individuals did do things that were wrong, but the overall action itself, is justified. In Afghanistan, we had to eliminate the government to help secure ourselves from terrorists that had attacked us at least twice before. And in Iraq, well, I felt that we never finished the job the first time I was there. (I was in Desert Shield/Storm) And I was more than happy to return.)
I know virtually nothing about Singapore, having never been there, except where to find it on a map. (This is better than 90% of Americans.) But, yes, the execution of Van Nguyen was to tell the world that Singapore will not accept drug traffickers in its territory. It is one part of its narcotics enforcement. Not to show “that human life can be made to succumbed to man made laws, if our legal system decides that our society demands it.” Again, it is for deterrence against breaking those same laws that also protect you.
The death penalty is not the result of paranoia; it is the result of past experience. Nothing is more effective at deterring someone than the threat of losing one’s life. More “benevolent” forms of punishment are what we use for mundane crimes; capital punishment is reserved for only the most despicable. And the threat of punishment is what keeps most people from breaking the law. Without punishment, laws mean nothing and protect no one.
Unjust laws and punishments will not be tolerated by the society they are in. There will be some form of rebellion against it, unless those laws are enforced by brute force. That is where the difference lies. Governments that are uncaring of their people, that enforce the death penalty to protect its own power, rarely survive. The death penalty must be used to protect the society for it to be justified. And since every society is different, they will have different reasons for using it and different views on it. Just like individuals.
I’ll see ya’ll later.
No comments:
Post a Comment