JUSTICE preaches for justice while doing exactly the opposite: “do what I say, not what I do”. This is why everyone is following the example. Find out why.
As we have seen in the case of “Artificial Intelligence”, the same applies to the “death penalty”: also a contradiction in terms.
Table of Contents
How: “Death Penalty” and “Artificial Intelligence” Pursue the Opposite of what they are Aiming for.
Back to “Artificial Intelligence“. Why do we say that such an expression is absurd? Because what is artificial is by definition the opposite of what lives in real terms, and yet only what is alive can be intelligent.
If we like to say our pet is smart, would we ever say our chair is smart? By no means, and it is because our dog, our cat are living beings, which is not the case with the chair.
Why is the “Death Penalty” a contradiction in terms? Because to be able to punish someone, this someone must first exist. If I eliminate the person who is to be punished, the punishment cannot take place.
Objection: this is precisely the punishment: making the person disappear.
Answer: would you agree with the treatment of curing the headache by cutting off the head? Surely not.
IS the Death Penalty the Best Punishment?
Modern justice aims to transform the criminal, to make him admit his fault and to go in the opposite direction: the right one.
How can the death penalty make him realize he has gone the wrong way? How on earth is that possible by killing him meanwhile wanting him to become repentant? The modern conception of justice doesn’t consist any more in retaliation: eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth.
And even if justice were, as it once was, a form of revenge, a legalized revenge: accepted insofar as it is managed by a public authority – rather than being in private hands –, it would still be very contradictory. Why? Because it takes place under the name of JUSTICE.
Is it an act of justice to punish someone who has committed a crime by committing an even worse crime? There is in fact no more serious crime than killing someone.
What is the Purpose of the Death Penalty? No goal, only Revenge.
Public authority is supposed to be exemplary, but the example set by the death penalty is that of a crime – so far murder is a crime.
It could be argued that a crime is, in certain circumstances, justified. We respond to the objection: who could ever establish that the crime committed was not in circumstances justifying it?
Impossible, answers justice, because a crime between citizens is in no case authorized. This locks justice in a dead end: justice, which, as said, must be exemplary, does the exact opposite of what it tells people to do. His attitude can be taken under the saying: do what I say not what I do. Is this morally consistent with the idea of justice we are taught to believe when judges become pyromaniac firefighters?
What are the Disadvantages of the Death Penalty?
The death penalty is not only lethal for those convicted, it is lethal for the whole of society. When innocent people are sentenced to death – unfortunately, this happens far more than one would like to believe – this very fact makes justice incapable of repairing its own failure once recognized as such.
Samuel R. Gross told Newsweek how a study, released in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, informs us that a relevant number of innocent people are on death row. 1
Finally, the death penalty is lethal for society because it supports what it is supposed to do away with. On the one hand, the person sentenced to death, guilty or innocent, cannot think of any alternative. Jet, justice, as opposed to injustice, always has to face an alternative: otherwise it would be a one-way street – no choice: no responsibility, no judgment: no condemnation. On the other hand, we also have to ask ourselves: how does this affect the rest of society? Sentencing a person to death as a way to restore justice – broken by crime – increases sadistic thoughts and impulses.
The Death Penalty: a Patriarchal Contradiction
Another argument shows how the death penalty is totally contradictory: you can only dispose of what you have acquired the property. Yet no one owns life, our own life or the lives of others, let alone the state. Why? Because he didn’t create it.
I can do whatever I want with the house I own because I built it or bought it. Nor did the state create or buy me – since slavery has been abolished, no one can be in possession of a person.
How can the state, which embodies the supreme idea of justice in our minds, commit the most infamous crime of all: ending life?
It seems that here at work is the endless principle from which the patriarchy can hardly be detached: death takes precedence over life.
This is not so surprising since the principle of life is embodied by the woman.
Patriarchy, which seeks to withhold the principle of life from women, can easily pass from the principle to life itself.
What about death? Anyone can “give death”, while only the woman can “give life”.
In other words, the difference between giving life and inflicting death is that only woman is capable of life and death: both, man cannot, he can only give death.
When he enters into competition with the woman, when he wants to measure himself against her: he does the only one of which he alone is capable: to kill.
21st Century Feminism and the Death Penalty
21st century feminism seeks deep collaboration between men and women to replace, wherever possible, deadly patriarchal ideals with those of women: principles that are rooted in life rather than death.
It is time for the woman to step in, not in order to follow the man’s footprints, rather change the entire social structure by putting life, by putting creativity at the top and destructiveness, and death at the bottom.
Thus, the issue of capital punishment will be confronted and resolved at its root instead of considering, in eternal disputes, the only consequences of the problem, without ever touching the causes.
Like what you see ? Join the conversation ! Details can be found by clicking here https://wonoman.com/contact/
