Nowadays, going through newspaper editorials often gives one the uncanny taste of repeatedly eating the same dish cooked in different styles. Even though the basic ingredients remain crime and punishment, there's so much hot and cold blowing about the now fragile issue of a criminal's fate, it makes me wonder whether it's really a matter of life and death. Between Dotsovesky and opinions as risky, I'm hanged if I can understand the reason of debate.
First of all, I don't hear any rumbles against rewards being befitting appreciation of merit and virtue. Conversely, then, the concept of punishment befalling a defaulter should be considered a natural corollary. And just as, at the apex, Lifetime Achievement Awards have been fashioned to befit superlatively laudable performers at home and abroad, so does the life sentence befit the indicted criminal, for whom then lawful society has no use. No arguments yet.
Now objects like locks are deterrents to the virtuous, not to the criminal. So, I imagine, are laws, respected by the lawful, spurned by the awful the offender. As matters stand, therefore, just because responses differ, it does not negate the existence or need for locks, laws, their protectors or enforcers, does it ? "No, it doesn't", you grudgingly agree. So by now, we have sifted society into, largely, 'inlaws' and 'outlaws', if you know what I mean, with the latter having developed an immune conscience. Obviously, therefore they have to be dealt with separately, as our grammar teacher would have said, with sensible sentences. And, the Lord help us, when it comes to the rarest of rare cases, when paediatric and geriatric predators (to name a few) outrageously outrage, plot, plunder, ravage and kill, the sentence has to match the extremity of the crime - sensibly, brutally. When Cain killed Abel he was marked for life to hang his head in shame in a society of three. In a society of billions, the onus would be on us to hang Cain, head and all. After all, despite the Human Right Activists' clamour (in protection of subhumans, I'm sure), people like him are as much use to society as a diseased appendix (also God's creation, mind you) is to us. And I don't hear anyone say if you can't make an appendix you have no right to destroy it.
As for those publicity seeking amatuer cooks waxing eloquent about capital punishment (I thought 'capital' meant 'perfect' !) being redundant because it does not prevent future such (a) crimes (b) criminals from evolving, they ought to have their heads examined before talking their heads off. I mean, do they have a divine missive from Nostradamus, including a comparison chart, as to how many such 'scheduled crimes' were encouraged by, or occured unmindful of such punishment ? Are they propogating giving such offenders another life, even as the single life of the hapless offended has ended ? Do they imply that a victim's right to live and be respected ends with his or her death ? Do they plan to cite Holly and Bolly Woods as the prime instigators of crime, with the criminal merely "doing as directed" ? The sentence of death is instituted only to criminals that richly deserve it many times over. Though any form of punishment cannot stop crime, it can nip the growth of many potential perpetrators in the bud, even if not all. No, there's no argument; vicious non-life in the form of killers and sexual violaters needs to be rendered lifeless, albeit within the purview of law.
The final victim of the imbroglio remains the Judicial system - hanged if they do, hanged if they don't. Sure, they're slow and overworked, with holes in their set-up like Swiss cheese (though not as palatable), but then they are not on trial here. The system is relevant, and it takes much debating and deliberating for judges to sentence an offender to death - not for joy, sadistic pleasure or a chance to play God. I dare say the final sentence is delivered by them with immense remorse and repugnance. One thing is perfectly clear, however - there is absolutely no scope for any more laxity than already exists. The Lord knows, already there are a lot many people around that deserve the noose but never end up getting it.
In conclusion, the most appropriate justice we need today in such extreme cases is, sadly, what the modern, sensitive and increasingly democratic world has left behind; the public display of punishment commensurate to the crime, including the death penalty. No closed door 'hush money' fines or out of court settlements, but a veritable exhibition of performing justice, understood and absorbed by the most illiterate; where lashing and chopping leaves a lasting impression on both the criminal and the viewers. Perhaps even the publicity seekingr cooks would grudgingly acknowledge the probability of a substantial decline in heinous crime thereafter. While hoping for a revival of that period, any punishment remains a capital idea. Of late, lawful citizens have begun to show their way of befitting instant justice by public lynching of criminals. Let's hope modern State law enforcer takes a leaf from their book soon - already the suspense is killing