The Rule Golden

There was recently a discussion on the death penalty and this discussion has interested this author for quite some time; give or take 30 years. There are a number of factors that come into play in this discussion, which is probably why this topic is so highly contended. Below is a list of contentious points, in paragraph form, to be considered by the reader. 

One typical rebuttal to the death penalty is that after the person is executed and what if new evidence shows up that proves said person didn't commit said crime worthy of execution. This author will accept that point and yet upon reflection will demand a response to - what will be done to remedy the situation that an innocent was technically kidnapped and held against their will for twenty plus years when that very same new evidence comes to light? When the answer is cash, then it must be accepted a year of life experienced in misery has a defined value thus perhaps proving that Universal Basic Income (UBI) can be a thing after all.

The second argument often put forward is that the 'state' must not be given the power to take a person's life. This argument in the eyes of this author is wrong in that it deifies 'The Government' because most governments already have this power under abortion rules and the abortion clinics they finance. To see where your country lands on the idea of sanctity of life, simply learn the laws around the murder of a pregnant woman and see if it is filed as the death of one or two people. 

 

A short tangent away from this discussion by returning to the previous paragraph for a moment, has Plato's Philosopher King ideal been made manifest in this the current year with the exception that the leaders of today are for the most part not the most ideal of men as Plato described?

 

Now back to our scheduled programing on killing certain people. 

The original Golden Rule, as found across most major religions, states that a person should treat others they themselves would like to be treated. Please reconsider the title of this article and please understand the rule needs to run in both directions and as such what one does to others shall be done to you. So when the facts of a crime are irrefutable then the consequence of that crime must carry the same merit and when the facts of a crime are in question then too must be the punishment, including both incarceration or death.

 

Simply put, when you are so unsure of the concept  that an eye for an eye and and tooth for a tooth can you sanction that when the public, whom by the way are the government, kidnap a man and hold him against his will within the same rule set, this author has a question - should a proven killer not be killed and a proven thief not be robbed? As for proven rapists well we don't have to worry as that retribution already happens within the prison system.

Of course now another head of the judicial Hydra needs to be addressed and that is the concept of bail. The practice of bail creates a two tiered system of the cashed and the cashless resulting in the free and the incarcerated; again without any judicial review. It is the understanding of this author that the origin of bail, under old English law, was a payment to the family of the murdered to make up for future lost wages, which would go to the family, in short the murderer bailed out the family and this turned out to be a form of insurance post duel. The not so big surprise is that the politicians stepped in the middle and shifted where the funds would be directed; fundamentally away from the family of the dead man towards someplace else. 

A crucible, as a noun, is a device used in science where some knowledge is gained by burning away everything that is not the thing you are looking to gain knowledge about. The courtroom was originally intended to be the crucible of law where the end results is that the facts remain after all of the other stuff was burned away. The opinions are burned away, the politics is burned and all that remains are facts over someone's ideal or truth. 

When this author was shorter, that being an euphemism for younger, fact and truth seemed united and since that time there has been a linguistic divergence where the words 'fact' and 'truth' have drifted ever further apart. Or perhaps when this author was smaller so was their brain and this paragraph is putting forth a distinction without a difference. 

Regardless of stature, weight or cranial capacity the initial argument still stands. Why should a person who feels that murder is fine not be murdered, a person who feels that theft is fine not be robbed, the rape thing has already been undressed, and yet why should a person not yet charged be imprisoned without a trial or at the very least compensation.

 

There was a time in years now gone when the rich could buy an 'indulgence' from the Pope for committing a sin and those years gone by were are the 1400s, or the Fifteenth century, and upon reflection this author must assume that the basic nature of humans and societies simply don't change.