The strongest argument for the death penalty is this:the state has a compact with its citizens, upon which basis private justice (vendetta) is foregone, and that is to use a reasonable resources to identify, apprehend, and appropriately punish the wrong- doer. In a democratic society politicians will use the argument that it is wrong to put people to death. The populace will vote according to who puts the best spin on it. We need laws that are immutable from state to state and not subject to the caprice of judges. Lawyers are the worst people to discuss any subject about law because they are conflicted by administration, plus they all eventually want to be appointed judges. Politicians are equally bad because they appoint judges. All judges should be elected and subject to recall.
If the state fails to satisfy the demands of justice as perceived by the ordinary citizen, faith in the judicial system is undermined, people feel freer to be scofflaws, and vigilantism is encouraged. Unequal bargaining power, resistance is useless, only in Hollywood. Do you remember the images of Elian and the Janet Reno Storm Troopers? The government is more afraid than ever of civil disobedience and will move quickly to squash any kind of movement it perceives as a threat.
Thus, whether to enforce the death penalty or not must reflect a reasonable degree of societal consensus. Oh really, and where in the ten commandments does it say that?
Do our lives belong to Caesar if we break the law? Does Caesar enforce secular law and Christian law? Was Jesus crucified for breaking Jewish law or Roman law? Was Pontius Pilate appointed or elected? Why am I asking you all these questions?
It's late, good night... |
