by Horatius Piscinus on Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Salvete philosophi
Human beings, as Stoics point out, are social animals. And as Stoics we are committed to engage in society and act by every means to improve upon its foundation. We cannot therefore afford to blind ourselves with any delusions, misperceptions or high ideals that would stifle pragmatic solutions to the ills of society. As Livy has said, Praeterita magis reprehendi possunt quam corrigi .
Romulus Orcus has offered a common notion. ?We don't have the right to kill another man.? This statement is entirely false. Certainly in Nature there is no prohibition from killing in self-defense or for survival. Rights and limitations on rights is something determined by society. Society determines whether or not a person has a right to kill another human being and under what circumstances. Certainly soldiers have this right when performing in the line of duty, under legal orders, in the defense of their country. Likewise police officers in the line of duty, under strict guidelines, have this right. Individuals also have this right, under strict judicial guidelines, in self-defense of their person or that of another. The application of capital punishment, likewise set by strict judicial guidelines, is a right determined by society for its own self-defense.
Ti. Coruncanius correctly pointed out that ?the early codes of law and early religious writings all sanction capital punishment. Cultures have decided that this form of punishment should be used given certain circumstances.? This addresses the fact that rights are made as conventions of a society. However, such an argument, on the face of it, does not justify any enlightened society accepting capital punishment today. No mother has ever agreed to allow their children to do what ?all the other kids are doing,? and no nation can afford to make the same error as other nations have in the past. But there are reasons behind societal acceptance of capital punishment, and Coruncanius makes a good point in that the collective moral wisdom of all philosophical and religious traditions have come to recognize that under certain circumstances the execution of certain individuals, for certain offenses, is justified and morally right. He referred to ?circumstances that are considered so dastardly by a society are punishable by death include instances of violent killings or working against and endangering the society.? That I agree is a key factor. Capital punishment is not intended to be used in case of crimes committed by an individual against another individual, but in cases where the nature of the offense attacks the very fiber of a society.
Another statement made by Orcus holds that, ?There is no way we can even begin to justify it as it will leave scares on our psyche.? He has a point. But, with consideration of the statement made by Coruncanius, not to hold certain crimes as exceeding common criminality will also leave ?scars on the psyche? of a society. Murder, in itself, as terrible as it may seem, is not so ?dastardly? a crime as to threaten society. A vast majority of murders are committed against family members in a fit of rage, others can be taken as essentially accidental or at least without intent. People who commit such crimes are capable of rehabilitation or treatment, and we should consider them to be members of society still and treat them accordingly. Common crime is a product of social conditions, and if we want to lessen crime we should seek to lessen the causes of crime by improving society. Improve upon equality in economic opportunity, social integration, education and standards of living. Rehabilitate and reintegrate those criminals who can be rehabilitated. Cure those who require it, treat those who cannot be cured. Others may need to be set off in a controlled society, such as in a prison, for whatever length of time is deemed necessary. What then is to be done with the others who, by their very acts, set themselves outside of society and can not be either rehabilitated, cured or treated, and who would pose a threat to members of society, including to those who may be incarcerated in a controlled society? And what about those whose crimes do threaten society or its core values? If we place their punishment on the same level as punishments meted out for common criminality, then we do an injustice to those members of society who commit common crimes, ostracizing them into another status outside of society where they are less likely to be rehabilitated and accepted back into society; we do an injustice to society itself, as we have seen in recent years, granting the perpetrators the fame of notoriety that only inspires others to commit the same crimes, while at the same time accepting an idea that such crimes somehow result from society itself rather than that they are intolerable acts against society.
The purpose of capital punishment is to permanently eliminate certain individuals whose presence cannot be tolerated in any segment of society, and where to do otherwise would jeopardize the core of society. Those who commit a concerted campaign of genocide should be eliminated. By the same token those who commit murder as a deliberate attempt to eliminate any group of people warrant a death sentence. It does not matter if their targeted group is a certain race, ethnic group, gender, sexual orientation, age group, occupation, or any other category. If an individual targets another solely because they belong to some identifiable group within society, then they threaten all of society and should be eliminated. With the same reasoning, I think rapists who target people of a specific group warrant a death sentence. Rape is a form of torture, committed to impose power on a defenseless individual, and anyone who commits torture is imho more depraved than any murderer. They should be eliminated. Those who attempt to commit terrorism or mass murder as did Timothy McVey obviously pose a threat to society and deserve to be executed. Those who commit exceptionally ?dastardly? crimes, by luring a victim with forethought, torturing, raping, or maiming them in the process of committing murder, deserve to be executed. Those who assault and murder police officers or other civil servants directly act against the core of society, threaten society, and should thus be eliminated. The key element in applying capital punishment, de iure, is where the crime directly assaults the fiber that holds a society together. And not to set off an ultimate punishment to apply in such instances also poses a threat to society.
As a former soldier, I would not hesitate to kill an enemy who threatened my country, I would not hesitate to kill a fellow soldier whose actions threatened the survival of my unit, nor would I hesitate to lead fellow soldiers into combat, knowing that we might all be killed, when the situation required it. As a Stoic, committed to improving society, I do not hesitate from eliminating those who threaten the core of society, no more than I would hesitate at weeding my garden. There is a cold, cruel world awaiting the naïve, and at times there are cold measures that must be used to address it.
Valete
M Horatius Piscinus
Sapere aude!