We find it disappointing that Mankind has never been able to adequately comprehend the nature and intrinsic dynamics of human “life.” The empirical reach of reason in such endeavor appears to be beyond Man’s potential capability, analogous to his present inability to conceptually envision and empirically consider astronomical descriptions of distances expressed in multiple light-years.
We have come to the personal understanding that the electro-chemical phenomenon of “life” is temporarily contained within the human body, and further, that when it ceases, what is factually buried at funerals is but the “container” or functioning machine of life and not the singularity of the relevant persona. Like other existing questions beyond the human ken, the institution of Religion, for many, has conveniently and blithely filled in the gaps.
However, the principle that human life is irreplaceable and singularly valuable. is universally accepted. “Right to Life” adherents would choose to maintain that life begins at the formative, chemically developmental stage (the “fetus”), a subject of ongoing legal and moral contention. Most rational individuals, religious and secular, however, believe that life begins at birth. There is, however, universal agreement as to its singular. precious and irreplaceable value, and that Nature’s grant of the franchise of life is no less than sacrosanct. Notably, there is no conceivable societal evil comparable to intentional homicide.
The most abjectly evil charge is “Crimes Against Humanity,” established at the Nuremberg Trials, following the end of World War 2. The latter were the public trials of Nazi Officers who ordered the killing of millions of people, principally Jews. The historically referable events were a cogently ethical and humanistic reminder that human life is precious and irreplaceable. The sadistic perpetrators were hanged; a retributive sanction, albeit ultimately inadequate to mitigate or rectify the ultimate evil of mass murder.
The traditional punishment, of capital punishment for homicidal behavior, is legally retributive and perhaps societally instructive, but not in any way redemptive, relative to nature’s singular grant of the franchise of human life. Its historical and legal justification has done little to articulate the intrinsically singular miracle of human life, aside from the context of the penalty for its pathological destruction. Retribution by State homicide is of little metaphysical use in the assertion of the sanctity of the franchise and the uniquely precious singular value of human life.
Our sense of moral responsibility has been the basis for our opposition to the atavistic institution of Capital Punishment. In addition to our view that it is forbidden by the Constitution’s mandate against “cruel and unusual punishment.” Added to the barbaric institution are the occasional technical glitches, chemical or electrical, causing unspeakable suffering to the convicted murderer, and the occasional instances of unjust conviction; its retributive value is far outweighed by its cruel, temporal rationalization of the primitive standard of “an eye for an eye.” The foregoing Biblical principle of criminal justice may satisfy a primitive sense of just retribution, but it does nothing to ameliorate the tragic impact of the underlying crime and empirically doubles the number of killed individuals “Tit for tat” is the most primitive form of justice; reparations and conceivably, reparations (personal or financial), for example, would be more rational and pragmatic.
The State’s atavistic rationale for the imposition of capital punishment for homicide is empirically a repetition of the undeniably regressive and universally pathological act of homicide; if life is precious and undeniably irreplaceable, its legally justified, voluntary extinction is incalculably immoral, for any reason, including the State-authorized homicide as brutal retribution for murder.
Long prison terms, together with hard labor, the remuneration for which goes to the impacted family, as one example, would seem to be more consistent with respect for society and human life.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 