|
The consideration of punishment
 
That those who steal shall have their hands cut off, that those who are adulterers shall be stoned to death, that those who kill shall have their lives taken from them - an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
But before one passes judgment and issues punishment one must consider. Consider the nature of the crime. Is it truly hurtful? Does it detract from another's enjoyment of life? Or is it simply an anathema to one's personal views of how one should conduct one's self?
Is the sodomite personally infringing on your freedom? Or does the concept of sodomy simply offend your sensibilities? Surely, if you are not involved in the act and it does not impinge on your freedoms then the act is not truly punishable - your perceptions, and not the violator is that which needs correcting.
Consider the degree of the crime - to steal is a crime, be it by stealth, guile or blatant extraction - and this is a crime which should be punished. To take a life is another commonly cited crime, but the two do not compare.
Consider the reason for the punishment. In history punishment (and, in many cases, in the alter ego of justice) has proven itself, time and time again, simply to be revenge. There is no case for revenge as the perpetrator will visit the instance of the victim.
There can only be one reason for punishment - to prevent the perpetrator from revisiting the criminal behaviour. Given the maxim of Solipsology - that life must be preserved as all life is our life - there can be no case for taking life in the course of punishment.
This deduction comes not from a sympathetic judgment, but from a logical deduction based on this premise: that repercussions of an act should be based on future prevention rather than revenge.
Hypocrisy abounds as the Christian bible proclaims that one should "turn the other cheek" whereas their greatest followers are also the greatest proponents of exacting revenge. In this, Gandhi's statement, that an eye for an eye does nothing but leave the whole world blind, is a doctrine to be observed.
Punishment should not be based on revenge. Punishment should not be punishment at all. While it is truly naive to believe that correction is an available option in many cases - many criminals are as such by nature and cannot be corrected (a situation which we cannot truly understand until we visit their instances) - the solution cannot be simple eradication.
Many criminals can be corrected and given that a possibility exists, when you live their instance, wouldn't you want every opportunity?
But regardless of the possibility of rehabilitation, can we say, categorically, that a crime has been committed beyond doubt? And even it that were the case, then can we say that the ultimate price is justified? Would we ask to be done that we, ourselves are forbidden to do?
If the criminal is truly repentant, then the price of isolation for the remainder of that life is enough for that person to willingly sacrifice that life for another instance. In the society of this century, prison inmates are protected, so that they may suffer. This is, in itself, another way that we exact revenge on the perpetrators. Those who have been convicted of crimes should be allowed to resign themselves to the next instance (that of their victim), if they feel inclined and, those who aren't inclined should be allowed to wallow in their isolation, before they are inevitably forced to revisit their next instance.
Enforcing their death does not enforce them to revisit the instance of their victim. It makes them a victim and their executors, as any perpetrator of violence will, as any violent being, will revisit the instance of their victim.
|
|
|
