What do you think should be done with murderers?
In John Grisham’s novel entitled, A Time to Kill, a man killed two young men after they raped his ten-year old daughter. A character named Row Ark felicitously asked a minor protagonist, a lawyer named Harry Rex, the question, “In your rational, civilised, and compassionate mind, what do you think we should do with them [child pornographers and terrorists]?”
Without bothering to give this question much practical thought, Harry Rex blurted out, “Hang them by their toes, castrate them, and let them bleed to death without a trial.” Whenever the issue of murder comes into play, people tend to think with their heart rather than their mind.
Emotions often interfere with a rational thought process. Strong views are held by retentionists and abolitionists of capital punishment. At each end of the spectrum is a group of moralists, or if you like pseudo-moralists, who might be unwilling to reconsider their view with a sober mind, and would gladly raise hell to advance, rather than sell, their viewpoint.
For instance, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) holds the view that, “The state should not give itself the right to kill humans - especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people.” Adding a moral dimension into the mix, ACLU further asserts, “The death penalty is uncivilised...barbaric and brutal.” The same view is held by the country’s human rights watchdog, Ditshwanelo, also called the Botswana Centre for Human Rights.
This organisation has never minced its words in its strong and unshakable censure of the death penalty.
Institutions and individuals against the death penalty are sold to the view that it is ludicrous and morally unacceptable to seek restitution for murdered souls by committing the very evil retentionists claim to vehemently denounce. They strongly believe that avenues for what they perceive as morally acceptable punishment like longer incarcerations or life sentences must be exploited. It is their considered view that no one is vested with the power to take that which has been bequeathed by the Creator.
However, pro-capital punishment individuals are of the view that, he who takes life naturally forfeits his right to life. They unrepentantly subscribe to the view captured in the theme of this article, that murderers should be hanged by their toes and bled to death.
From time to time, impassioned but sarcasm-draped contretemps and animosity amplifying debates, all too often overcharged with raw emotion, burst the social-media court of public opinion whenever a death sentence is pronounced.
Normally, people seethe with fury, and would see nothing wrong in aggressively flailing their wobbly digital arms and in thrusting their unsteady cyber fingers at each other, and in erratically using strong language in a desperate attempt to prove wrong the group holding a different view.
In many cases, unenviably locked in a rather obsessive but adversarial posture between their hyper-inflated egos and a sense of genuine reasonableness, fence straddlers are disposed to dismally failing to maintain their neutrality. More often than not, they lean towards choosing to maintain the non-confrontational stance of not provoking anyone, largely out of fear of being maligned for clashing with the so-called mainstream and dogmatic views.
At the risk of being summarily dismissed as an individual keen to stoke the fires of rampant criminality, I would say, what I find gratingly disquieting is the fluid view held by some retentionists.
Particularly their hypocritical inclination to ditch their rigidly held view in cases where the murderer happens to be someone intimately close to them. Without an iota of shame, they tend to view capital punishment as a general rule for which exceptions should be accommodated in favour of their loved ones. Rather than choosing to anchor their views on capital punishment on the shifty notion of exceptionalism, isn’t it reasonable to expect such views to be principled? Is it acceptable to have such views tied to the whims of loud-mouthed individuals who happen to be inherently selfish?
Rather than run the risk of taking ourselves too seriously, wouldn’t it be wise to accept that for as long as individuals are free to express their views, people will always hold different views on the death penalty? Isn’t it true that people of the same political and religious persuasions hold divergent views on this matter? Doesn’t the same apply to siblings and spouses? Haven’t we seen practitioners serving in the same profession or industry, whether on different levels of the judiciary value chain or the endless variety of professional fields asserting their right to intellectual and personal autonomy by choosing either side?
Is there anything wrong with being indulgent in accommodating the views of other people without necessarily making them our own? What is so hard about accepting that people seldom agree on everything?
Are we so feeble-minded and bloated with an uppity holier than thou attitude that we tend to think the world is either black or white, while against all reason, we deliberately ignore the multiple shades of grey that make the universe uniquely attractive?
Having grappled with this issue for years, isn’t it time we accepted Aristotle’s view, that, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it?” Why can’t we let our opposing views, that are so far proving nearly impossible to reconcile, live side by side, without the one group feeling that morally and ethically, they have the right to dictate to the other? Is it a sign of moral stature or amoral notoriety to flex our distorted comme il fault muscles on issues of this nature? And are we content with casually accepting our fragile grip on our offensive and insidious emotions?
One would of course want to be careful to steer clear of minimising sensitivities that usually surround murder. Particularly the inexpressible grief suffered by surviving family members.
This becomes important when breadwinners are brutally murdered and their families are wantonly thrown in hard times. In such cases, it is reasonable for affected individuals to feel hard done by. It is also understandable why they may wish to pursue vengeance.
But all things considered, wouldn’t capital punishment only serve to shift the pain and sorrow to another family? By trying to take the moral high ground and choosing to sadistically kill the murderer, who are we effectively punishing, the murderer or his surviving loved ones? Can we assign a meaningful utilitarian value to maintaining the death penalty by mindlessly invoking some form of constitutional or legislative decree? Or is there demonstrable value in living with the notion, to each his own?
More and more countries have decided to free themselves from the clutches of the death penalty. By the end of last year, 144 countries had pivoted towards outlawing capital punishment and only 55 countries maintained it, possibly as a deterrent against willful murder. While the broader society would eagerly embrace all crime deterring measures, especially those that seek to deter commission of murder, isn’t it true that despite pro-capital punishment legislation that comes in all sorts of colours in these 55 countries, people continue to commit homicides? Of course, the theme of this article is a little over-egged, but it highlights the unignorable views held by societal elements who consider it de rigueur to murder murderers.
