Today the 3rd February 2017 is the fiftieth anniversary of the last execution in Australia. Since that time we have lived in an environment were by murderers are kept alive and most of them are released. When Capital Punishment ended we were told that a life sentence would mean life imprisonment. But except in the very worst cases it in fact never means that. To give one example, the last person sentenced to death in Australia was Brenda Hodge who was sentenced to death in 1984, it was commuted to life imprisonment, so how much time did she serve? 10 years. From death to 10 years is a pretty big drop!
Now people often say we don't need Capital Punishment a) it is barbaric b) what if we execute an innocent man? c) revenge is not justice d) it is not a deterrent, 3) it's state murder lets have a look at each in turn.
It is barbaric:
Here is a classic Liberal tactic, brand something wrong (barbaric, discriminatory, etc.) and just keep calling it that no matter what the evidence. In the case of Capital Punishment this has been a major tactic for 300 years. It was in the 1700's that Capital Punishment first came under serious attack and that attack was that it was barbaric. In Britain the first move to restrict Capital Punishment was to call for a ban on public executions, why? Because it was barbaric. The real reason was that the public liked executions and the Middle Class did not approve of that.
In common with most Liberal causes, while opposition to Capital Punishment was held by some for most Liberals it was not an issue. And for a century the issue wasn't an issue. But it is truly remarkable how patient Liberalism is, because when it woke up again it used the exact same argument again. For a century it hadn't been barbaric and then after WWII it was barbaric again and again it shows how Liberalism works. Because the same was true of Capital Punishment after WWII as it had been a century before, the public liked executions, it was the Middle Class who didn't. So the Middle Class used their power in the Law, Parliament, the Media, Political Parties and the one thing that the Middle Class does best, the lobby groups. Lawyers cast doubt on the fairness of the law, on the need for it in a modern society and in private ie. professional lobbying to organisations such as Law Societies. The other professionals did much the same and of course never forget the appeal of Middle Class lobbyists submitting appeals to Middle Class Professional lobbyists.
All of this, regardless of the country lead to a push to abolish Capital Punishment and in each case they used controversial cases to push for it's abolition, always on the grounds that it is barbaric. But is Capital Punishment really barbaric?
Recently in the United States there has been a controversy regarding lethal injection. The drugs used come from Europe and abolitionists have tried and in some cases succeeded in stopping the drugs from being exported to the United States. Meaning that either the State in question is forced to cancel the execution or to use alternative drugs. When that leads to new problems the abolitionists then say that Capital Punishment must be banned as it is barbaric. Here is another classic Liberal tactic, to create the problem and then provide the "solution".
The truth is that modern Capital Punishment, no matter the method of execution is as painless as death can be. The further truth is that most people will suffer more painful deaths then those executed using modern methods.
What if we execute an innocent man?
Now this is a good argument as most people find it very hard to counter. Mistakes, even honest mistakes happen, the argument goes that if you wrongly convict a man and he is executed then a great injustice has been done, but if he goes to jail you can fix the mistake. But here's the thing, the problem Liberals have with Capital Punishment isn't that they might execute an innocent men, no the thing that keeps them up at night is what happens if they execute a guilty man!
Liberalism believes in the Autonomous Individual, that each person is self make and self defined. A big part of that is the idea that life should not have consequences. Capital Punishment is a big consequence and it's permanent and that is why Liberals hate it, that is why they oppose it. Liberalism loves the idea of mercy, not for the innocent, for the guilty because it shows how morally superior they are to the rest of us.
Revenge is not justice:
Basically their argument is that the only punishment that is acceptable is the one they approve of. If it's more severe then they approve of they call it revenge, if they approve of it it's justice. The Liberal position is based on nothing but arrogance.
It's not a deterrent:
This one is just a lie and they know it. If something is punished harshly then people will try to avoid it, that's just common sense. Ohhh common sense now I see why Liberals missed this rather obvious idea.
The other tack they take with this idea is that murder rates have not risen since Capital Punishment was abolished so that must mean that Capital Punishment was not a deterrent. Now let me ask you a question. In the past 50 years has medical technology gotten worse, stayed the same or gotten better?
I would suggest that most people would say it has gotten better, so if medical technology has gotten better then that should mean that murder is rarer because less people die from the same wounds. When you look at it in that light you realise that society is more violent now then it was 50 years ago.
It's State murder:
Here we see the Pacifists idea that all killing is wrong in full swing, but like Pacifism it's a really bad idea. It says that the murderer has killed isn't that enough violence? What will be achieved by committing more violence? And like Pacifism it is both simple to understand and wrong.
The thing that separates Capital Punishment from murder is threefold, firstly it is legitimate, secondly the punishment is known and thirdly it is justice. Capital Punishment is lawful because the lawful authorities have made it legal, if they abolish it it is no longer lawful. But once the lawful authorities have made it lawful then then it is lawful and there for legitimate. A murder is by definition unlawful, meaning that by definition Capital Punishment constituted by a lawful authority can never be unlawful.
Secondly the punishment is known, unlike murder it is not arbitrary, that means that a murderer, unlike his victim, knows what he is getting himself into.
Thirdly a victim of murder does not get a defendant to protect their legal rights, they have no jury of their peers to appeal to, they have no learned Judge to keep things above board. The victim is denied all of these things, the murderer in a court of law is not. To pretend that this is judicial murder is simply that, pretense.
Why is it that only the victim of a murder should suffer death but the murderer should not?
Why is his life more precious than the life he has taken?
The law should always be on the side of the innocent, protecting the innocent is justice, When murderers are not executed they escape punishment, it is sadly that simple and for 50 years Australia has been in a place where the guilty are protected at the expense of the innocent.
When will we see justice again?
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future
Another Article You Might Like?