Barely. Though if I lose my head, it won’t be @MikeTheBard’s fault in particular.
The fact is, I am using all my capacity for “tolerating foreign cultures” when it comes to this subject.
I am happy to live in a country where I can call the death penalty “barbaric” and have everyone around me agree whole-heartedly.
Executioners in the US and the people who chop off thieves’ hands in some Islamic countries belong in the same category for me. Of course, the executioners are worse, because they are murderers.
So while I’d happily have Tsarnaev imprisoned for life (with a possibility for parole after 15 years; life without parole is inhuman), I’d also feel comfortable with putting his executioner behind bars for five years or so.
But my real problem is, while I can usually stay polite and even friendly in the face of serious differences, I cannot understand how a moral human being can condone murder. As in, “I really think this person should be killed”, rather than “Unfortunately, there was no other choice in this situation”, or even “unfortunately, we have to consider up to X collateral deaths an acceptable risk in this case”.
I share your surrounding cultural difference (for now, the tories have made moves to reinstate the death penalty) and I feel like I can calmly argue my point with someone who argues their point in good faith, but I found no such good faith here.
I can only imagine that people who hold such views are not just defending their own ideas but that of their surrounding culture, which they have inculcated and defend under the assumption of morality authority. That or they really do believe, for whatever reasons, that killing people is an answer to any moral question. I just haven’t been able to get to the point where a person describes those reasons with anything approaching moral coherency.
Because at the heart of it, I believe there are things worse than death- The loss of the self being one of them. I would honestly rather put a shotgun in my mouth than succumb to alzheimer’s or dementia. Maybe you wouldn’t. That’s fine. Your life, your choice. To me, it’s the mind, more than the body, which is responsible for who we are. It is the products of our mind- our words and deeds and the emotions we display- which live on in others after we’re gone.
Even the bad stuff. Even the monstrous stuff.
So the idea of forcibly changing that mind- Of tampering with it to better fit what other people expect or demand of it- Well, I can’t think of any way to describe it except as a horrific atrocity, even when done to protect society. If you go back to my original post, you’ll see that I’m talking about pathological, predatory offenders- In these people, the instinct to harm others is a primary, defining element of their psyche- As central to their self as sexual preference, taste in art, or memories.
You can’t just reach in and start flipping those switches without literally changing who they are- And at that point, we’re entering philosophical territory of what makes us us, and whether the state has the right to decide who we are.
I would rather not cross that line. Especially when there are people who honestly, genuinely believe that society needs to be protected from gays, or Muslims, or who the fuck knows what else.
I can understand the death penalty. I could even condone it. If there is no realistic doubt that you have the right person, then it is not necessarily kinder to keep them in a cell for the rest of their lives. We are not necessarily a better society for walling people up for the rest of their lives. There are a lot of people and they can’t all be gems, and sometimes it is easier to start again than to fix.
What creeps me out is all this gloating. You could just put people to sleep without them knowing what was going on, instead of strapping them to a table and slowly injecting them with while they are awake and fully conscious of what is going on, and surrounded by the press: that is just plain ghoulish. The people what want to stick them in a small cell forever surrounded by the pictures and voices of their victims are no better.
Well, if you don’t insist on any “suicide prevention” crap, you don’t need to decide for other people that they’re “better off dead”.
Good example. If there was a working “gay conversion” theory, I’d much rather be “converted” than murdered. I’d even prefer the fucked-up nonsense that certain American fanatics do to being killed outright.
If someone feels offended that I’m not part of his particular Born-Again-Christian club, I’d of course prefer them to leave me alone. But given the choice between having my head forcible submerged in a dirty holy river and being shot to death on the spot - just baptize me already!
When would you un-cross it? When a child develops the habit of consistently saying “fuck you” instead of “thank you”, measures are taken to change that habit. There will always be debate on what measures are appropriate in what situations, and whether the honesty expressed by “fuck you” isn’t a much more important virtue than the hypocritical politeness expressed by a “thank you” in the same situation. But most cultures agree that shooting the child is not an option. I happen to disapprove of excessive use of drugs like Ritalin on children, but I’d never dream of thinking that killing kids diagnosed with mild ADHS is preferrable. So, no un-crossable line here.
And on the child’s 18th birthday, it suddenly becomes an un-crossable line. Society has no longer a right to try to change somebody, and gains the right to kill someone in return?
===
Of course, you’re free to say “I’d rather die”. If that ever happens to you, just kill yourself.
“That life isn’t worth living” is an excuse for killing someone that has been used before. And that’s a line that I’m not willing to cross.
