Monday, 10 November 2008

bye-bye murderers

So, three of the Bali bombers - those pathologically stupid, grinning, self-promoting criminal arseholes - have finally been terminated by the Indonesian state.
Heartbreaker. A handful down, a million or two to go.
No, seriously, it's about about fucking time.
I'd have taken these turds out with a baseball bat … along with the adventurist murderers in the Bush cabinet.

It may surprise many, including my nearest and dearest, that I indeed support the death 'penalty' in some cases.
This is one of them.
As I point out in the following extracts, it's taken me most of a lifetime to arrive at this point.
No, it hasn't been an easy journey.
Two 'wrongs' don't make a right … but, occasionally, one 'right' does.

Here are some of recent posts from my favourite forum - edited for context only.

2 November (1)
Old enough to remember the execution of Ronald Ryan in 1967 …
… and the community rage it engendered at the time (including the anger and despair within my own family), I've grappled with this issue since I was a kid.
Now, nearer to my date of death than my birth (unless I live to 105+ … possible?), I've (more or less) settled on a position I'm satisfied with.
Having read all these posts from people I respect a great deal – who have produced solid 'pro-life' arguments that make sense – it ain't easy for me to say this … but I do indeed support termination of life when it makes society a better place.
Where murder is concerned it's not about punishment or penalties (or even political repercussions) for me: it's more about eliminating menaces, making life safer for the majority.
My support is conditional, however: if any doubt regarding guilt exists, or if the killer/s express genuine contrition, then murdering someone in the name of 'justice' is plain wrong.
I'd happily extend my beliefs to embrace a range of other violent crimes.

2 November (2)
[Responding to XXX.]
XXX: The problem is – people are convicted when the evidence is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If there was any doubts as to their guilt, they shouldn't be convicted.
Agree 100%, XXX. 
That's one of the shortcomings of the jury system: average punters are expected to make a life-or-death decision based on a series of evidence which all too often is inconclusive …
applying the 'final solution' to a criminal must not be based on weighted conclusions (opinions) but on incontrovertible fact – or, in the case of the Bali bombers, self-aggrandising admissions.
And, when the execution takes place, it is (ideally) unpublicised.
XXX: As to whether they have genuine contrition – who decides that?
I'm not a lawyer ;), just a fairly compassionate individual who believes in the greater good. I don't profess to have all the answers and wouldn't dream to proselytize.
That said, there are plenty of professionals who are more than capable of determining whether killers, serial child-abusers et al. regret their actions or not.
Once again, if a skerrick of doubt remains at the end of a trial, don't kill them in society's name.

3 November
Violent crime rightly evokes an emotional response. 
We'd be less than human if we didn't feel anger and horror when any human being is violated.
The death sentence – ideally, any sentence – must transcend emotion.
(Or, for that matter, political expediency.)
As I said earlier, for me it's not about 'punishment' – and definitely not about revenge.
Neither is it about the political ramifications, martyrdom (what a pack of indoctrinated loser thugs choose to do in the name of a non-existent deity!) or the murderers' global fan-base.
In those rare cases when the facts are established – with 100% certainty – it's time for society to take out its garbage. IMO.
(Acknowledgements to whoever mentioned cleaning up the gene pool.)
One of the reasons many societies ('Western', 'Eastern', others[!?]) are struggling more than ever is that – individually and collectively – we are increasingly disengaged and unwilling to face problems head-on (but that discussion's probably best left for another thread).
In response to the implied question, Yes – as a pacifist rather than a passivist – I'd pull the pin if my number came up.
Admittedly, this is unlikely in a country where cold killers, child-abusers, rapists and wife-bashers can receive multiple 'second chances'.
Postscript: "Never to be released" is pretty arbitrary in countries where presidents, governments and miscellaneous dictators can overrule court decisions when it suits them.

No comments: