Stupid stupid stupid: Death Penalty Woes

First, read this.

Agree or disagree with the death penalty, I don’t care. This article is wrong.

1. “Adolf Eichmann…is the only death sentence ever to be carried out by the Jewish state”

If I was to be nice, I think I’d call that historical revisionism. But I’m not, so I’ll just call it plain idiotic. Operation Wrath of God killed dozens, ‘guilty’ and ‘innocents’ (there were never any judicial hearings), was fully sanctioned by the Isreali State, and later proven in an idependent court of law. Then of course there’s the frequent ‘military strikes’ against Palestinians: rockets fired from helicopters or jets into crowded civilian areas, without judicial process. While Berstein does mention these ‘extra-judicial’ killings, he separates them – without explanation – from the debate. Israel is a horrible example of a tempered application of the death sentence.

2. “It is perfectly possible, in the Australian context, to maintain an abhorrence of capital punishment in principle, and fight for its abolition, in Indonesia and elsewhere in our region, for all but the most heinous of crimes against humanity.”

You would then expect Bernstein to discuss how the cultures of the Pacific region all share a common understanding of ‘crimes against humanity’. And ‘heinous’. And how it’s possible to have a ‘principle’ that contradicts itself. Oh well.

I guess that leaves it for me to disagree: We do not share with Indonesia, nor other S.E Asian countries, a common cultural understanding of criminal punishment.

What right have we to complain about the inhumanity of the death penalty for drug traffickers if we were to support the death penalty for other crimes? And even if we could establish such a ‘right’, why should we expect such varied cultures to respect ‘our’ discrimination over their own?

But to me, this is not really that important to the debate. The discussion on the morality of punishment should only come after we have satisfied the right of the state to take human life. While in the past democracy, common law and human rights were inconsistent on the issue of capital punishment, there has been an obvious historical trend towards the reduction of the states power to take life. Indeed, in Australia, a majority of people still support capital punishment. But unless that same majority are prepared to accept state intrusion into other ethical dilemmas (perhaps the state should control ‘free speech’?), they should expect leadership on the issue.

That means – despite the vivid emotional debate – politicians going against public opinion and curtailing their own power. It means the state preserving the rights, and life, of the citizens it represents. And it means setting an example, without condition, for others to follow.