The followin' ramble, replete with thought-provokin' questions and comparisons, spun out of a short discussion I had recently with a long-time friend. I have continued to turn the topic over in my head for for several weeks, which was probably a little too long.
This is not an examination of Current Law, or our Judicial, Legal, or Prison Systems, but only a purely Philosophical Reflection.
My apologies in advance- this one circles way, way out and back...
I expect most of us would agree that there are acts so horrific, so unconscionable, that they warrant death for the perpetrator. Actions so heinous, that only with the Extermination of the Guilty can Justice truly be served.
It also seems obvious that We have a Moral Obligation to remove the Predatory Among Us in order to halt their victimization of others.
But, I still feel somewhat conflicted when it comes to Society decidin' to serve up the Ultimate Punishment. The Takin' of Life is still just that- the Takin' of Life, regardless of the Justification we apply.
Not sure it's our place.
(Wait! Joe Walsh on the radio...)
"Pow! Right between the eyes..."
Now, where was I...?
Right!
So, please don't misinterpret or miss my point. It's just that this seems like one of those things that doesn't quite fall within Our Scope of Responsibility.
Y'know how certain people, and certain groups of people, favor More Extreme Forms of Punishment in the Name of Justice (or, in the Name of X or Y...) more often, more zealously than others? You know 'em- the ones that are quickest to call for Blood, more the Old Testament types of thinkers when it comes to some things.
I can't help but be curious about that thing, that mechanism, that drives this particular desire. It can't be simple. Surely it must be spun out when of a number of things come together: Nuanced, Learned Concepts such as Morality, Justice, Fairness, as well as more Inherent, Primal Concepts like Revenge, Compulsion, even Bloodlust.
At what point does Righteous Indignation turn into Self-Righteous Indignation? Are these two concepts similar, but separate? Does a point of blending, an overlap, exist between the two? Or, is there a specific definin' point, a Shared Border, so to speak, where Right and Wrong press solid against one another? "The Greater Good", "the End justified by the Means", "the Lesser of Two Evils"- is this Gray Area the birthplace of these types of Ambiguous, Self-Serving, Pseudo-Moralistic Concepts?
And, if from a Moral Standpoint, the forfeiture of one's own life is considered at once both just and appropriate payment for the takin' of the life of another, then shouldn't it also be the Responsibility of a Civilized People to punish those who are found guilty of inflictin' Wholesale Injury upon large groups of others as a means to achieve Selfish Goals? Logic would seem to rule in the affirmative.
But, in this country, it would appear that we have allowed some kinda Bizarre System to be constructed. A System in which individuals who intentionally destroy the Health, Livelihood, or even the Lives of Thousands as a result of their relentless, unscrupulous Quest for Personal Gain are all-but-immune from Prosecution, and are sometimes even rewarded for their Crimes, while We, The Masses, clamor incessantly to see the Hand of Justice applied to those Reckless of Action, the Murderous Scorned, the Pathological, and the Mentally and Emotionally Deficient. A Separate Set of Rules for a Particular Caste of American Citizens. And yet, we continue to hunger to add Executioner to our List of Duties when it comes to the Obviously Sociopathic. Just so long as they're not wearin' gold cuff links or sportin' a Rolex.
I reckon we more easily identify with a single or small number of victims plucked from among the Innocent, rather than a group of thousands, or even tens of thousands, that may have fell victim to the Mega-Con of a Master Criminal Investment Banker or Super Villan CEO. It's just so much more easily processed and personalized. Easier to put a face on it.
And we are all just human, and errors in judgement sometimes impact others unintentionally. Should we develop an algorithm to quantify the impact an individual's misdeeds placed on Society as a Whole? Should Emotional Distress be quantified, then included as a factor in such a decision? Is this where we're goin'? Can we just turn victims into statistics?
And, who among us could be considered qualified to assume that responsibility? Perhaps the same folks that are comfortable Flippin' the Switch, or Settin' the Needle. Or Tyin' the Noose...?
A Special Kinda Person, that...
I don't profess to have an answer. But, if we could all stop for just minute, just a minute, and shut out all the Bullshit and think for ourselves, with minds clear of pre-conceived notions and bias, we might undergo a Change in Perception, and perhaps have a better understandin' of our responsibilities as the Children of Men and realize that with the takin' of Human Life, regardless of our rationale, we are venturin' into the Realm of Responsibility that belongs only to the God we claim to follow, and have deemed ourselves worthy to make certain decisions in His stead.
Has a select group been designated? Was there a Grand Decree? Did I miss it? In what part of the Book are we granted the Power to Judge, considered wise enough to pass the Ultimate Judgement?
In the World of Man that has spawned the ice-cold phrase "Collateral Damage", I think our Wisdom is wantin'.
Fish~
