"Dead Killer Good Killer," or Humanist Hypocricy?

flatearther · #1 (**permalink**) 03-13-2008, 07:45 PM

There are still some, who, whilst proclaiming ‘freedom of speech’ the loudest, wish to enforce a total ban on the discussion of certain subjects. There are some topics that Humanists will never allow to be freely aired. Such a topic is Capital Punishment. When Humanists are asked why they oppose it, they will begin with the mantra:‘It is wrong, because it is wrong, because it is wrong’, etc.

Then they begin to cite a variety of essentially religious reasons! Those Humanists who claim to be moral relativists, will insist that it is absolutely wrong to execute any criminals. They have no difficulty, either, in blatant ‘porkies!’. They will insist that Capital Punishment is not a deterrent. They ignore the fact that, at least for the particular criminal executed, it has been 100% effective. Whether it acts as a deterrent to other potential criminals needs to remain unproven either way. We can only say that it is not an absolute deterrent, even though we then have to qualify this by stating that we need to apply an equal logic to every other punishment for every other crime.

Humanists will argue that Capital Punishment brutalises society. They do not argue that society is equally brutalised when the same criminals are allowed to escape or be released unchanged to repeatedly commit the offence as often as they do. In practice, in Australia, at least, life sentences are way shorter than those imposed and no jail anywhere can be guaranteed 100% secure.

Hence we inherit an almost perverse turn in Humanist ‘thinking’, to the edge of hypocrisy. Whilst they very loudly endorse euthanasia for themselves and their associates, they will callously deny it to a criminal who would prefer to die, as an alternative option to a long incarceration. In the Humanist view, an extreme criminal becomes somehow sacrosanct – a sort of sacred Humanist icon. Their argument that no one should have the right to take human life, except in circumstances of self-defence, exhibits all the hallmarks of a full-blown religious argument, with very religious overtones!

Yet, by refusing Capital Punishment, are they really escaping a life-and-death decision, or merely putting it on hold, with perhaps an intended detour to the too-hard basket?

The sheer cost of keeping a prisoner in maximum security is akin to the cost of keeping a PhD student in College. Resources are certainly not unlimited. In practice, we must routinely restrict prime positions in College, Social Services, etc in order to keep dangerous criminals alive. By soaking up often stressed resources, these same criminals may cause even more death, suffering and social devastation than whilst they were busy running amok!

Humanists generally agree that it would have been acceptable to assassinate Hitler during World War II, on the grounds that it was a defensive war. However, because Hitler was in jail, it would have been wrong to kill him there. But he got out of jail! Therefore the whole camber of this plea seems to smack of the concept of "giving the criminal a sporting chance".

In any event, could there be a political dimension behind the Humanist concern for the "Right To Life" for criminals? Could they perhaps fear that with a change of government, they themselves might face "The Hot Seat" for political crimes? They would be quite foolish to assume that a total abolition of Capital Punishment would protect them in any way. With a changed government, an un-introduced policy can very easily and quietly be reintroduced? Any Humanists fearing for their own security, would be far wiser to prevent such political executions by placing the subject of Capital Punishment on a more rational basis.

It is often argued that retribution is a barbaric practice; that it is clearly un-Christian, and is expressly and explicitly forbidden in the Christian Scriptures. Yet, would it not be reasonable to assume that the whole purpose of the Criminal Justice System is to reduce crime and to minimise suffering and disorder within the community, rather than to extract some simplistic personal retribution?

Surely, any question of execution should depend on some sort of benefit to the community? Too harsh and arbitrary a system would place the ordinary, decent citizen in a state of terror and confusion – yet, a system too lenient will produce equally undesirable outcomes. In instances where the question of guilt is not absolutely clear [as with the celebrated, sensational "Lindy Chamberlain" case in Australia] and easily identifiable ones elsewhere, it would be socially reassuring to avoid a death sentence.

In circumstances where there exists an extended history of psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour, in the absence of a medical or social cure, where the offender continues to be a threat to the community, to the other prisoners, to the guards and others, the situation is clearly and distinctly different. The real question here, ought to be – should we or should we not terminate such persons for the sake and the safety of the innocent and concurrently invest into community benefits the money thus saved from a prolonged and expensive imprisonment? For, the more elaborate the care we bestow upon the guilty, the less benefits can the innocent enjoy? Such a termination could be accepted less as a punishment or even a deterrent in the ordinary sense – rather, it might be viewed as a truly humane re- arrangement and proper decision on the most important priorities.

Yes, one could justify the storage and maintenance of such people after a rigorous scientific study was launched to discover why they behave so badly. Yet, this might then produce a social program to apply such knowledge, or perhaps even effect a cure, as well as ways to locate and treat similar types before they committed their offences. However, the Humanist viewpoint seems to have a curious regard for a person’s ‘dignity’, - but only long after they have proven themselves to be unfit members of the human race.

The Humanist perspective resists any experimentation upon the ultra-guilty, whilst it simultaneously regards the innocent unborn human as just so much biological material. Whence did the Humanist candle begin to dim so reasonless? Let us prey.