Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

Execution - A Humanist Hypocrisy?

Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 12:23:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Humanists, proclaiming ‘freedom of speech' the loudest, wish to enforce a total ban on the discussion of certain subjects. There are topics Humanists will never allow to be freely aired. Such a topic is Capital Punishment. Asked why they oppose it, they start the mantra:‘It is wrong, because it is wrong, because it is wrong', etc.

Then they cite a variety of essentially religious reasons! The Humanists who claim to be moral relativists, insist it is wrong to execute any criminals. They claim that Capital Punishment is not a deterrent. Ignoring the fact that for that particular criminal it's been 100% effective. Deterrence for other criminalss is unproven either way unless we apply an equal logic to every other punishment for every other crime.

Humanists argue that Capital Punishment "brutalizes" 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 a perverse turn in Humanist ‘thinking', to the edge of hypocrisy. They'll endorse euthanasia for themselves and their cronies, yet they will begrudge it to a criminal who would prefer to go now rather than much, much later, after intolerable incarceration. The extreme criminal becomes a sacrosanct Humanist icon.

That "No one should have the right to take human life, except in self-defense has the hallmarks overtones of a full-blown religious argument. Is this to squib a real life & death decision? A paper for the too-hard basket?

What cost to keep a criminal in max security? About the same as a PhD student in College. In practice, we routinely sacrifice the resources of useful professionals in favour of keeping violent, dangerous and unproductive criminals alive. And whilst incarcerated, they have the added privilege of opportunity to cause more mayhem and havoc than when running Amok.

Humanists agree it would have been acceptable to assassinate Hitler during World War II, on the grounds that it was a defensive war. But 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 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.

"Retribution is a barbaric practice"- clearly un-Christian, and is expressly 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?

Questions of execution should rest on some 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 circumstances of a history of psychopathic and sociopathic behaviour, in the absence of a medical or social cure, and the offender continues to threaten the community, other prisoners, guards and others, the situation is clearly and distinctly different. The question here, ought to be – should such persons be terminated 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?

Surely,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 splutter and dim so reasonless?
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2011 1:13:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
yor racist!11!
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp