Capital punishment has never really been an issue in
I remember when President Chandrika Bandaranaike attempted to reintroduce the death penalty in 2005 after High Court Judge Ambeypitiya’s death. After 24 years of the penalty being on moratorium, many considered this a major step back in Human Rights in
It’s been over 30 years since the last state hanging took place and there are still certain parties in the government as well as the public that wish to accurately enforce this punishment without the charade.
In fact, this has been troubling me for past few weeks as I pondered whether the reinforcement of the death penalty will just prove democracy an oxymoron. Do we, as humans of the same intellect and understanding, have the right to take the life of a fellow human being?
If a state’s law condemns murder, what validation does it have to murder in the name of justice? Is justice actually ours to protect? And is our human interpretation of justice actually protecting what is just and righteous? Must people actually be exterminated to provide the rest of society a comfortable and secure existence?
The issue in question is a moral one. For the ease of my readers let us discuss the matter in terms of a prisoner put to death for multiple homicides. As many may believe, there are some criminals that must be exterminated in order to withhold justice because they have committed a certain degree of crime. Or in simpler terminology, “they deserve it” or “they had it coming”. As far as this maybe true, there is a line which is crossed each time someone is executed by the state. The moral reality of ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ applies perfectly to this discussion as the action taken by the state is essentially the crime committed by the murderer, except for the fact that justice is the state’s motive
å
One of my close friends asked me but one question on this topic. “If your family was hacked to death by some robbers tomorrow, will you not want that person to suffer the same fate?” When I was met with this question, I paused and thought to myself that maybe I would want the murderer to suffer an even more ill fated end as he would take away from me more than I would be able to bear.
However, it dawned upon me that at my idea of justice at a point like this would be completely driven by my emotion. I would only want a selfish form of vengeance by which I would still feel no better as it will yet not compensate for what I had lost. So I simply answered him, “I guess that is why affected family members are never part of a jury”.
14 comments:
A very interesting article. One thing though. Shouldn't the correct title be "Life: Is it ours to take?"
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next part.
Thank you for reading.
yeah, i was about to ask the same thing!!! can you explain why you chose this title?
some good thoughts. but don't you think justice is about restoring equilibrium? to make things equal sometimes revenge is necessary. even God took revenge on David for committing adultery by killing off David's first born son. well, anyway, the idea that we can't take someone else's life doesn't always apply to state activities. that's why state sanctioned killing like in the case of the police or army is acceptable. the death penalty comes from the idea that the state has certain overarching rights over individuals. this extends to even taking the individual's life in order to serve some greater good. so if you want to argue against the death penalty, attacking it's utility is a better place to start than attacking it's philosophical basis.
Isn’t Jesus forgiven his killers? Didn’t he say not to take revenge?
By the way, God is the most inhuman motherfker we ever know. If we do the same thing that God did, we should kill children, not criminals. May be a whole country full of children.
random joe, thats the old testament. If you want to look at the christian point of view then the words of Jesus take precedence over those in the old testament. ie turning the other cheek etc. and forgiveness.
Found this the other day.
Gandhi plead's for husband's killer
"Indian opposition leader, Sonia Gandhi, has asked for clemency to be shown to one of four people convicted for assassinating her husband, former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi."
http://slceasefire.blogspot.com/2007/05/gandhi-pleads-for-husbands-killer.html
Thank you archangel and random Joe for pointing out the error in my title. I have changed it.
RJ, your argument on how revenge is necessary for restoring peace and justice was very interesting and for the most part true. However, the point I was making was that this is not justification enough for taking another human being's life. One must keep in mind that the government consists of humans with no greater understanding than any one else. It is also true that we humans are the ones who entrust this power in them but this power should be ideally beyond our reach.
As you said the idea that we cannot take another's life doesn't apply to state activities is also very true. My entire post would be quite irrelevant otherwise. But why doesn't it apply to state activities. Because it should. If law is meant to restore peace and order then it should followed by the state as well, due to the simple fact that the government is essentially run by humans. People like you and me.
If death was the only solution than i would stand corrected but it isn't. The death penalty is not a last resort, it is a valid punishment for a criminal who commits a certain degree of crime. What greater good can come from ending another's life. Even if you could come up with an answer to that what right do we have as humans or even a government to take that life away? Who has given them that right? Is the U.S right to kill innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq in the name of justice for the greater good of their people? If you think so then let's beg to defer.
As much as i told myself that i must not bring relegion into this arguement i see that many of you have managed to bring it in quite strongly. Firstly, RJ, what God does and what man does should be something completely different. We can't the powers and rights of God. If God created us and gave us life then he has the right to take it away. I don't think you and I or anyone else should assume that we can do the same. The example you used should also be looked up as God didn't extract 'revenge' from David. I think your using the wrong word. You would also see that Christian Ideology changed drastically after the death of Christ.
The other point you made was that i should attack its utility and frankly i don't see it. My second post may make this more clear.
Sam, thank you for your enlightening comment.
Over the past decades Sri Lanka has been one of the Asian states that has set an example in the region by rejecting the death penalty and it should continue doing so, besides i think The death penalty is a violation of the right to life and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.
i think criminals shud be punished, cuz otherwise every criminal is going to think they can get away after commiting a crime, like murder or rape. and besides justice had nothing to do wit morals because sometimes wat is legal is not morally right and wat is illegal doesnt have to be morally right!
Unfortunately 'civil vigilante' i find it difficult to understand the latter part of your post but I'm assuming that you meant that what is illegal does not have to be morally INcorrect.
However, challenging what I did understand from your scribbling is pretty simple. Justice is based on morals. What else could it be based on? If Justice did not represent or protect moral values then it would not carry the same meaning.
'Yes' I do agree that criminals need to be punished and if you understood what I had written you would know that I am not against punishment. I am just against Capital Punishment. There is a difference.
While criminals need to be taught a lesson, what lesson could be learned by killing someone? Society obviously cannot let Criminals run free or unpunished but we certainly can practice a certain degree of compassion and forgiveness unlike the criminals themselves. This might help Society morally distance itself from the Criminal.
wat if criminals take our compassion and forgiveness for granted. then wat?? criminals will always be criminals, we musnt forget that!
First of all, even if criminals will always be criminals you must note that we are talking about a certain degree of crime here. Even if we do not kill the criminal, he will undoubtedly never be free again. So he will never be able to be a plague to society again.
Secondly, society is not concerned whether criminals take its compassion for granted. Why should they? What compassion are we showing them by not doing something we do not anyway have the right to do, which is end their lives. Besides, I doubt an imprisoned criminal's arrogance would affect society in any way.
if we are gonna put a criminal away for life then we might as well kill him and end all his pain? i mean why should the government pay for the criminals food and well being for the whole time he's in jail? and also how can u say 'wat compassion are we showing them by taking their life' i cant remember them caring abt who they killed or raped!
We cannot take his life, because life and death is something we should not have control over. If you had the time to read 'Part 2' of the post then you might have understood my point a little better.
About providing 'food' for prisoners, my opinion on infrastructure and expenditure is also expressed in the second post.
Please do feel free to comment again.
Civil Vigilante??? hahahaha... who came up with that name... from the way u write it doesn't seem like u did. Anyway i agree with Ares a 100%... we shudn't have that sort of power over other ppl's lives...
You write very well.
Post a Comment