lordhelmet01's Journal: Stalin Was On To Something

JE005 20041129M1045

It's time to push another possibly contentious button. On the topic of crime and punishment, how vigorously should a society protect itself and its citizens from predators and enemies before it starts presuming guilt rather than innocence and meting out cruel and unusual punishment?

I am Canadian, and pretty much the only thing I envy the Americans for is their penal system. Maybe I'm oversensitive to criminals being released at 2/3rds of their sentence as the rule rather than the exception and getting bullshit sentences to start with, but ya just gotta admire the way the Yanks can lay down and enforce the law. In Canada, a life sentence means 25 years maximum, whereas down South life means you leave the Big House in a box. There are a handful of inmates here who are locked up as dangerous offenders for an indefinite period (Clifford Olson & Paul Bernardo) and lots of rapists and killers who get out early when they should be locked away for a very long time.

So what should be done when a person willfully and dangerously breaks from society's norms? The society should be strong enough to protect itself, otherwise the government and courts lose the confidence of the citizens and vigilante action begins (a recent example in Mexico has brought the issue to the fore). As a supporter of law and order I cannot in good conscience condone vigilante action, but what good is a Criminal Code if it won't be enforced? There are some crimes which demand swift and severe punishment. It is at this point that I enter a more undecided state of mind.

The problem with the death penalty is that it is final, and if the wrong person is sentenced then justice has been wronged. OTOH, leaving the inmate alive leaves open the possibility of future offences (although in some cases, few and far between, rehabilitation is possible). It has been called cruel to advocate eye for an eye sentencing, such as retaliatory killing or injuring in the same manner it was performed. So if you can't rape the rapist, abuse the abuser, or torture and dismember the most heinous killers, how can justice be done?

This is where I turn to an evil, vile mass murderer for an idea - Joe Stalin had Siberia. Canada has the Arctic. For the worst of the offenders, they should have the choice of exile or death. Either ship them out to the middle of nowhere with minimal supplies (or better still put them on an iceberg) to fend for themselves, lock them down in a facility where they get bread and water in a 24 hr lockdown, or kill them. I don't expect the death sentence to be carried out as painfully as possible, but there's no way an inmate should be put under with drugs before being killed. Kill them quickly but painfully, so that the victims and society can have some measure of justice and satisfaction in showing the citizens that they are protected.

Basically, I support the death penalty, but I have one major problem with it (other than killing the wrong person). For some people death is just too good! The beauty of leaving them alive is that their torment can be indefinite. Maybe something like a life sentence in solitary confinement with absolutely no human contact, sustenance as needed for survival, and no possible way of committing suicide. Then you get the bleeding hearts that call this cruel. Where's the balance? At what point is justice served? Where is the society that protects itself without going too far? The funny thing is, when we got married my wife was pro-death penalty and I was not. Now I'm more in favour of it (a form of it, anyway) and she's not. Funny how a year can change you.