The death penalty is nothing more than the hypocritical killing of a person for having committed acts and offended the sensitivities of society and the state such that their continued living is arbitrarily deemed to be too great an inconvenience to countenance.
The state will generally make it seem like a "proper" carrying out of "justice" - either through the involvement of the general public or through the burying of the murderous act beneath layers of ritual and/or protocol.
To indulge in such is to indulge in snuffing out the inconvenient, sating the lust for base retribution, further underlining the sordid degree of its control upon its subjects, the people.
The death penalty is inconsistency. To indulge in precisely what one condemns, no matter how sanitized one opts to make it, is to court an entitled hypocrisy - to devolve into that which one condemns - perhaps worse.
And those who would bark or bleat that I'd speak a different tune were I to be directly afflicted would miss the truth that it is irrelevant that I might perhaps indeed be emotionally compromised - and that hence I would no longer be relied upon to pass truly just judgment. This is why judges are supposed to be uninvested in the cases that they preside over.
As a student of consistency I recognize the hypocrisy and the folly of putting to death an individual who is no longer a threat to society by the very virtue of his or her detainment.
As a student of consistency I turn back to those who bark and bleat and ask if they would truthfully put their own flesh and blood or even themselves to death were they to commit such acts.
A few shall affirm. Whether they are consistent or liars only time could test.
Thank you for the inspiration to put my thoughts on the matter to words @tarazkp. :c)
Well said.
Aha, a fellow student of logic?
As much as I love logic, I think you are making a mistake mixing morality and logic too much. I don't like to ride on dead horses for too long, but do you know Kant? His concept in a nutshell said that stealing and murder is always the same moral action, no matter the circumstances.
To me morality is something highly individual and that is OK. Logic is universal and shouldn't be used by people to white wash their action or idleness.
Let me give you a completely fictional example. I am a German in the year 1940 and I know about all the evil Hitler is doing, hell he did to my family. I am really pissed. All I can think about is killing Hitler. Am I a hero or an evil psychopath?
Greetings @thatgermandude and thank you for the stimulating comment. :c)
While I would also consider myself somewhat of a student of logic, I am more of a student of consistency. I consider the two to be related but different entities.
Consistency is a metaproperty which is fundamentally important to logic and holds a co-dependent element with logic in both its perceived value as well as depending upon logic to quantify and facilitate determining consistency or lack thereof - but is not, by my reckoning, founded upon such.
I digress.
I do consider consistency and ethics to be important to quantifying and determining moral dilemmas. While I have heard of Kant, I have not studied his teachings in any meaningful depth. My immediate reaction to his concept that stealing and murder is always the same moral action, no matter the circumstances - I am uncertain as to whether he was confusing consistency with the disregard of variables (circumstances) and thus promoting sameness rather than true consistency. Such may be simpler but definition is undoubtedly lost as a result.
Yes, every individual has their sphere of the personal. Individuals also lack formal ethical guidance and this results in a much greater degree of moral variance. That variance exists is not something that I personally consider objectionable. More objectionable do I find the resultant lack of guidance and inclination to gravitate towards consistency in whatever ethical system that an individual builds over time. Instead they are provided a few lines of text and cause to fear the repercussions of following those lines...
...which often enough results in a "moral system" that shows its true mettle in instances where 'getting caught' is an unlikely possibility.
As to your fictional example - the person that you portray is clearly emotionally compromised. They are neither hero nor psychopath but an individual driven by rage/ passion. While it is highly doubtful that such a person would be held accountable for his actions within such a politically-charged climate (kind of like soldiers triumphantly claiming that they killed Bin Laden (and then... flew his body all the way across the nation to 'another' body of water and dumped his body... 9_9)), such is not consistency.
One needn't go that far back in time honestly. Gaddafi and Saddam were both (conveniently) killed following the successful infiltration and overthrow or invasion of their respective nations. Those who believe that such has been for the best tend not to have ever been resident of North Africa or the Middle East (opinion engineering is effective). Again, however, I digress.
I would argue that we are not digressing far off-topic. Talking about how rules in morality and law should be set is a substantial part of the concept púnishment.
So you are saying that people need to be logical within their own ruleset and then you would talk about consistency, is that correct?
I would agree on that I still remember nailing a Steemian on the definition of consensus that he provided himself (climate change debate).
I will write about Kant some time soon. I feel like he is part of the reason we see lawmaking as it is today. Ofc I explained his theory in my biased words pointing out the flaws, he did not say it like that.
I am more than willing to delve into the meta, if you feel so inclined.
I would also agree that such is fundamentally relevant to the discussion even if it did not originate upon this level.
Besides, being 'nailed' on a definition at this level would simply indicate a need for improvement, either in my delivery or of my understanding of the concept. Either way, I could only stand to benefit from the experience. ;c)
I appreciate your clarification that Kant's words were a little different. While words do not always perfectly convey the meaning intended, one's choice of wording remains important nonetheless.
That is a well thought out reply and thank you for taking the time.
I suggest that the emotional self is the one that demands punishment but it is not strong enough to maintain vigor to enact it. I personally do not think in a case such as this I would be able to do as such and since I am not a supporter of the death penalty or taking a life if it can be preserved, I would not demand someone else, state or whoever to perform for me.
The death penalty is a theme that I have found myself revisiting on multiple occasions as part of my reflections upon the power-consolidating legal processes of state. As such I've had a fair amount of opportuntiy to think my thoughts through. ^_^
Agreed. The emotional self is the aspect that is more likely to act "with passion" and exact retribution if afforded a chanel to do so.
There is a high probability that once the initial passion of initiation subsides that the individual will cool and even recoil at what s/he would have begun and either abandon the effort or seek or conclude swiftly.
There is a possibility however that the act will either awaken darker aspects unknown to the self - or otherwise set up a self-sustaining process of sadistic pleasure - as after all - hatred may be defined as that state where one derives happiness from the misfortune of the subject concerned - and combined with a high dose of rage - all bets could be off in terms of that "justice-seeker" retaining his or her humanity in dealing out what s/he feels to be justified.
Alternatively the "passion" could subside and a cold-calculating curiosity might instead grip the heart of the "justice-seeker" - which is likely to turn out just as bad, or worse.
Do either of these scenes sound like those of a person of sound mind?
No - no it does not. And lusting to enlist somebody else's services to commit the deed for the self, or even wishing to spectate upon such is still to exist upon that spectrum.
The persons may need psychological help...
As once one begins to make exceptions where morales are concerned...
...well... one's morals are no longer consistent - and therein lies a greater danger than any killer within a cell.
It is after 4 am so I will not respond 'well' but, I feel that the human mind can overcome a hell of a lot of adversity. The worst experiences can be healed without adding to a chain of violence. However, most cannot see this as in their own experience, it is the way of the world.
The slippery slope is indeed a risk for any that step to the edge and I would err in forgiveness and jail time over punishment. The question of free will also arises on both sides of the equation and the assumption of guilt is based upon the assumption of control. A broken mind, is just that, broken. Should someone with epilepsy be punished because they refuse to control their body?
It was getting late enough for me also so I well understand your meaning (Steemit is a little addictive - and I should be doing other things...). :c)
When a person is immersed within a poorly environment without a better point of reference, that environment is for him or her the norm and thus is far less likely to question it.
Fortunately in this ever more connected World it is increasingly difficult to avoid such points of reference and while many a mind will remain closed - others will explore the alien possibilities.
This is a subject that I hope to address in the future but I do believe that remaining consistent in one's ways is paramount. If one feels inclined to make exceptions for this or that reason then either the nature or the extent of the "justice" concerned may be non-optimal - thus implying that exploration of a new equilibrium may be in order.
A person who is psychologically impaired or compelled to commit acts is a person who is a danger to society. While a condition may be viewed as a factor external to the individual for as far as choice is concerned - there should remain an element of accountability.
Yes, I am not saying they should walk free but I wonder if with the development of mental understanding, in the future there will be technological solutions to alter, repress or change certain aspects of the brain. Until then, lock them up humanely for to treat them otherwise is to lose humanity in ourselves.
I was just replying to @thatgermandude about the blind societal aspects to revenge and it is closely linked to that of honor killings in some communities.
This is an interesting topic, however horrible, and I am glad that you have taken the time to get into it a bit with me :)
That would make for the rise of an interesting set of options.
Technically we already have interesting options open to us.
I really wish that I had the time to fully immerse myself in this subject with both yourself and @thatgermandude, but I should be working on something else right now. :cP
That and I nuked my voting power over the past 24 hours. ^_^;;;
Incidentally I'd like to take this opportunity to urge readers to resteem this topic (I can only resteem once). Its a very intriguing subject. :c)