Capital Punishment and Life After Death
Capital punishment is a constant source of dispute. Broadly, the differences of opinion run on political lines: the left oppose it and the right support it, though there are a large number of exceptions. The left-leaning Christian churches oppose capital punishment, at least in Australia and the UK.
I remember reading some time ago about a minister in the 19th century who said that criminals should hung until nearly dead, their bodies drawn through the streets by horses and then cut into four quarters (hung, drawn and quartered). This, he said, would teach them not to do it again. It struck me at the time as completely absurd, but if you start from the assumption that there is life after death then it makes a kind of sense. You punish the body in this world so that he soul can learn in the next. For an atheist this is little consolation, though one may argue that if you don't believe in life after death or God, then justice is simply a matter of pragmatism. To a certain extent the Australian Philosopher Peter Singer argues this.
There is a phrase 'Sanctity of Human Life' which is used largely by Atheists. It's a way of covering up the lack of any real moral values with an arbitrary one. To talk about 'Sanctity of Human Life' is really to say 'I'm against killing', but wraps it up in pseudo-religious jargon in order to attempt to give it some credibility. Are these people against ALL killing? Well some are but other's are very selective in their use of this phrase and only wheel it out when talking about capital punishment.
One of the arguments against capital punishment is that the wrong person can be executed. Of course. It's also possible to wrongly imprison someone for life. If there's a problem with the legal system then that should be remedied. The corollary of this argument is that everyone should be given a fine for any crime. That way if there is an injustice the money can be refunded with interest.
In the US it's mainly only blacks who are executed. It's blacks too who are more likely to be imprisoned and this is not simply because they commit more crimes, it's because the legal system is skewed in favour of whites, and particularly middle class whites. This is not justice, but is not an argument against capital punishment; it's an argument in favour of overhauling the US legal system.
When people had religious beliefs, before the Christian orthodoxy had sapped
the life out of anyone with real love of God, there was a view of being responsible
before God. The idea that you did your best and you were accountable on the
Day of Judgment People who held this view were largely incorruptible and gave
their best to whatever they did. Judges had the view that they were answerable
to God for their decisions and if they made a wrong decision then it was with
the best intent. Of course this is idealistic, but there was a different attitude
at the time.
Nowadays people are always looking over their shoulder at the legal system, or what the media will make of them. Not only is corruption rife, in the sense of being bought for money, but corrupt ethical views abound. Lawyers will defend people they know to be guilty, in fact they have to if they are to keep their license. They are not intent of defending justice they are defending a corrupt legal system. This quote is from
Techniques of Exposing Corruption and Reporting Legal Proceedings - Evan Whitton (See link on right)
The equally candid Stuart Littlemore QC, who used to pontificate on Media Watch about reporters’ ethics, or lack thereof, was questioned on Channel 7 in 1995 by Andrew Denton about defending people he knew were guilty.
"Well, They're the best cases," Littlemore replied. "I mean, you really feel
you've done something when you get the guilty off. Anyone can get an innocent
person off; I mean, they shouldn't be on trial. But the guilty - that's the
challenge."
"Don't you in some sense share in their guilt?" Denton asked.
"Not at all," replied Littlemore.
I rest my case.
