RapierFugue
Posts: 4740
Joined: 3/16/2006 From: London, England Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WyldHrt Just asking. And you're right to do so. What you're missing (because possibly I didn't explain it, just took it as read someone would join the dots but you’re right, that's not a given) is the difference between personal, emotional, feelings about a crime, and the objective justice the law should embody and dispense. I, on a personal level, feel revolted and angry, and so wish to see those responsible suffer. But that's the simple reason why the law doesn't allow me to dispense my own justice; I'm neither objective enough, nor qualified enough on my own, nor dispassionate enough, to do so fairly. Thus, justice should be dispensed by the state, on behalf of society. Yet another reason why the death penalty is fundamentally wrong; if society says "murder is wrong" (because it is) then society can't then add "except for when we act en masse, through the state, to murder citizens through the rule of law". Take a look at those countries who operate the death penalty; the USA and Japan are the only 1st world nations of note to do so*. Then look at the other countries on the death penalty list ... that's company one wouldn't want to be keeping. Let's see ... ooh look, there's Libya, Africa's top executioner ... that's a great social bedfellow to have eh? Then there's China, the world's number one fan of state-sponsored murder ... another enlightened country ... not. I mean, really; it's 2011. Are there seriously people left in the world so filled with ignorance, bile and hatred that they consider the death penalty a sound option? I mean, remove for a moment that unfortunate habit the law has of locking up, and sometimes executing, the wrong person - just look at it in purely social terms; are we really saying it's an acceptable practice in this day and age, even as a concept? It’s what a former lecturer of mine used to call a “light bulb” option; if it didn’t already exist, and someone suggested it, they’d be laughed out of town, in the light bulb’s case because they’re such an extraordinary waste of resource and energy for such a short term gain (hence why the world is moving towards long-life, low energy, lighting solutions) and in the case of the death penalty because it has such glaring and easily understood shortcomings. The problem is, it’s been around for a long time, and the weight of history and convention is a heavy thing to throw off. Almost all nations have, though. Time for the USA and Japan to enter the 21st century. *as part of a regular rule of law; there are other countries who technically can issue the death penalty, but in practice their law and legal frameworks make it all but impossible to do so, and they merely haven't, in a few cases removed the concept from their statutes, just made it nearly impossible in practice.
|