Various notes, day 736
It seems so strange for time to be passing so quickly and yet so slowly all at once. It's funny how this little attempt to document the things going on around me--as if I might control my days by writing each thing down--has slipped into something comfortable, comforting
( Read more... )
Where the issue of deterrence is concerned, I think you have only to compare crime rates in places that execute prisoners with those of places that don't. It might not be a perfect measurement, but it's good enough.
Most people who are about to commit a terrible crime, for whatever reason, aren't in any condition to stop and consider the death penalty.
So we must murder killers? Why not then steal from thieves? No, that's not how the law should work. I think a lifetime of imprisonment is a harsh enough penalty. The punishment should fit the crime. Those who have committed the worst crimes should lose all hope of freedom.
You call the law impartial, but the law is not. It is made by people, for people. Look at certain laws of the past, which today we consider to be unjust: there you can see the prejudices of the times.
Impartial is what the law aspires to be, not what it is, and we must struggle always towards that ideal. Flawed and human as we are, we might never reach it, but we must change and move forward as wisdom and compassion demand.
If we look to the rest of the world, we can see that so many other nations have done away with capital punishment. Perhaps that should tell us something.
But I do respect your opinion and the logic behind it. I can see why you feel as you do. There are people I think the world would be better off without, but I can't be trusted to make that choice. No one can.
Tea? I never drink tea when I could drink coffee. That's my rule.
Reply
Please keep in mind, I'm not advocating the simplistic "eye for an eye" approach. In fact, I do agree that we've started leaning too close to that type of approach, which I consider dangerous.
Impartial is what the law aspires to be, not what it is, and we must struggle always towards that ideal.
Precisely. You and I are not in disagreement on this point.
There are people I think the world would be better off without, but I can't be trusted to make that choice. No one can.
You might also argue that no one can be truly trusted to run a nation, but someone must do it.
Certainly our discussion has given me much to consider. More evidence as to why this debate has raged on for years, no doubt.
Reply
Even if it is a deterrent, I'm not sure whether that means it should be practiced, because last I heard, there are other ways to deter crime, and maybe we should focus more on the ones that don't end in someone dying.
It's a little disingenuous to bring up running a country, because a country must be run, but prisoners don't have to be executed. Look at all the nations without capital punishment that are doing just fine.
In the case of the death penalty, one man--the judge--decides whether a prisoner lives or dies. That's an entirely different matter.
I didn't think you were espousing the old "eye for an eye" argument, as you seem much too reasonable for that. I was simply referring to your statement "the consequence must equal the action" and pointing out that there are other punishments that can equal murder. I do enjoy my rhetoric.
Yes, thank you for the discussion. I found it rather refreshing. You've given me a lot to think about, too. Maybe we can talk about it some more over coffee--or tea, in your case.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment