Why I’m against capital punishment
Did you know that ‘caput’ means head in Latin?
Anyway, I want to take the opportunity here to describe why I’m so utterly revolted by capital punishment. There had been in me a disgust of capital punishment for a long time and I’ve only recently discovered why, after many hours of labourious and deep mental activity.
It begins really with an understanding of society. I believe society to be a group of individuals that choose to be together. The modern day society of course is no such place but let me just speak on the theory my dear reader. As a group they decide upon common rules and acceptable (or unacceptable) conduct. The other side to these restrictions are the benefits of society, whatever those may be for any particular society.
To sum that bit up then, society demands a price but gives things in return and it is a constant dynamic equalibrium (Not that kind in chemistry because that one never made sense to me).
So the society can only cease giving its bounty to those who refuse to obey its rules, it cannot take away extra from the person anything beyond what it gives. This is where capital punishment to me fails to make sense and becomes a blood sport to appease the twisted masses. Society did not give life therefore it has no right over life. No human on earth was given life by anyone but his (or her) parents. Where other entitlements are granted by society, for instance free speech or fair trial, life was not given by society. If anyone has the ‘right’ to terminate a life it is those who brought it into being.
Do not mistake in believing that am anti punishment. I am not. I believe those that commit crimes against society or another person do need to be punished. They can only be be so within the bounds of society though.
Assuming society is this place of free association where every member enters knowing the costs and benefits we could explain away this thing known as capital punishment by saying everyone ‘signs away’ their right to life if they commit a bad enough crime. The problem is that proof is rarely absolute. I doubt if any individual would agree to live in a society where 7 juror’s (of 12) opinions were enough to end his life.
So if proof is not absolute we have to default to the theoretical and make the distinction between what society gives and has the right to stop giving and what society does not give and has no right to touch.
For what man can judge that another deserves to die. What judge would dare to sit and condemn a person to death, he would dare to sit and say persons X are worthy of life whilst person Y is not, I have so decided…
It’s sick.