The Golden Rule – Revisited

 The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would expect to be treated themselves. In this writing I’m going to explore a possible logical conclusion that is currently frowned upon in Western society; the subject matter is the death penalty. Please keep in mind the idea of ‘do unto others as you would them have done unto you’, and when people don’t adhere to this fairly simple principle then they are tyrants, petty tyrants or willing slaves.

 

At its very base, the Golden Rule, means that if you thieve then you should allow to be stolen from by others, and if you murder then you should not complain about being killed; which is of course obvious as dead people don’t talk. A person who beyond a reasonable doubt is found guilty of taking a life, should accept that their life is forfeit under the Golden Rule unless once again their intent is to be a tyrant; and seeing as most people typically don’t like tyrants, seeing as so many tyrants were killed without a trial, while your basic murderer is typically given a chance in court before any punishment is applied.

 

This leaves me asking if the current social balance is based on allowing individualistic tyranny coupled with willing slavery, or on the recognition of and the even application of the Law. In other words, has Lady Justice remained as blind in the countries where the people previously claimed she was; for me the answer is a resounding NO.

 

Some detractors of the death penalty will raise whataboutism with a focus on ‘new evidence’ after death showing an error in conviction. In Canada, both first and second degree murder carries a life sentence without chance of parole for 25 years; this for a 55 year old man has a strong potential of being a death penalty like sentence. And then, what happens if that same new evidence comes out posthumously, typically the government dips into the public purse for a cash disbursement. A more pragmatic approach considers takes a monetary approach, 25 years of prison budget plus new evidence payout budget vs. death penalty plus new evidence payout; no research was done to see if the new evidence payout includes an amount for each month behind bars.

 

Other opponents of the death penalty will trot out the ‘moral high-ground’ argument; this is where the claim is made ‘that a society can not condemn a murderer to death if it is willing to execute its own citizens’. While ad hoc ergo propter hoc (“after this, therefore because of this”) in this case there is no fallaciousness here. If the primary purpose of the government is the protection of the citizenry, and that is why most countries have armies for national defense; I will borrow from the Americans on the topic of ’all enemies foreign and domestic’.

 

I consider a person who kills on any country's soil, an enemy of the citizenry of that country. Taking a human life not in self defense or in the defense of others must be considered murder or at least manslaughter, and this is why a man I previously knew, his name being Ed, who may still be a lawyer for Canadian solders; though I think he worked as both prosecutor and defender.

 

Blackstone's formulation states, ‘It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffers’ has, for me become mostly null and void because of the sciences which has nourished the technologies now in use in criminal investigations thus leaving little room for doubt of criminality; my the basic question is how far will a society go in self defense vs. maintaining some moral high ground. That being said, the legal system has been matured with avenues of checks and balances, such as courts of appeal. Of course there is always a chance of an ‘oops’, therefore in a case where things aren’t all that straightforward, a charge of manslaughter is always an option.

 

While I’m not a lawyer and I’ve never played one on television, murder and manslaughter are two different things, as manslaughter seems to lack the ‘mens rea’ or  ‘state of mind’ for the intentional taking of another’s life. Murder and manslaughter have different standards/recommendations with regards to sentencing, this line of delineation was probably due to the concept of state of mind; hence a psychological review is called, especially for crimes of passion.

 

Moving slightly off topic, if the stories of incarcerated pedophiles are to be accepted as truth, then we as a Canadian society, do have a death penalty already in place though it seems to be quite selective, and the government off loads the deed to someone who has already killed, robbed or sexually abused and are also already incarcerated.  

 

Now, if the other stories of incarcerated pedophiles are to be accepted as truth, then we as a Canadian condone slavery. When an incarcerated pedophile doesn’t want Protective Custody (PC) they will upon occasion do paid labour and hand their monies/earnings over to a cell-block ‘boss’ in exchange for protection. This means that Canada has government sanctioned slavery though the government off loads the deed to someone who already killed, robbed or abused and are also already incarcerated.

 

So here we are at the end of my Readers Digest version of this discussion. As an Italian might say ‘c'è molta carne alla griglia’ or in English ‘there is a lot of meat on the grill’, the intent behind this saying is that when there are too many items presented it is harder to properly manage all of the talking-points at the same time without getting burned on at least one of them.

 

I don’t expect to sway many minds with this pat on the back for the ‘death penalty’, as this is a visceral topic and so many people just won’t change their mind on this topic. This subject matter is kind of like abortion yet different because in the case of murder, it was the murderer  who made the choice to take a human life. In closing, I’m not a doctor and I’ve never played on television.

 

Please be good…