santianna

Capital Punishment and Human Supremacy

Violence is administered unto others by people that think they are greater than them, and if you support the death penalty, then you think youre better than the person that has been sent to the hangman, and youre sorely mistaken. No one human being is better than another, and regardless of the consequences (much of which does not have any verifiable truth anyway is the world safer because Iraq was invaded, is Singapore safer because we murder drug dealers? I do not think so) no one has the right to condemn anyone else.

Let he who has sin cast the first stone, and we are all born guilty. In the eyes of God, and under the benevolent covenants of human rights (as opposed to malevolent state laws), no one has the right. Death, I am certain, is handed out NOT by people who care first and foremost, for the well being of society but by people who think they are better, and who believe they have the power and the right to do so. The wider philosophy of society demanding the sacrifice of the life of one man for the good of others is dangerous, and to derive directly from Ayn Rand, [no human being] should be the means to an end for the welfare of others. The situation is different, but the reason for the death sentence is the same as that of communism. It is the marginalization of the individual life for the state, something humanely unacceptable.

Even in a state like California that has a Justice system comprising of a jury, there is still much to be wary off when it comes to handing out the death penalty. Because violence can only bring violence, and every hateful act will seep into the fabric of humanity and propagate more and more hatred. In small cases like the state sanctioned deaths of Tookie Williams and that of Van Nguyen, you do not see it manifest itself as explicitly, but increase the scale and consider 9/11, the war in Afghanistan that proceeded it, and Iraq in 2003, and you notice that violence inevitably begets violence. If the point of all social progress is to reduce bloodshed, pain and death and increase lifespan and quality of life, than the death penalty can only take us the other way.

Indeed Singapores fortunes are founded upon entrepot trade, and drugs are a commodity like any other, and drug trafficking is a social ill we stand to be at risk off. However, taking into consideration the education of the countrys people and the stringent and efficient narcotics enforcement force which our prudently allocated tax money continues to pay for, is the death penalty for drug trafficking necessary? Is there any other point to it than telling the rest of the world that this is our turf, and that human life can be made to succumbed to man made laws, if our legal system decides that our society demands it.

The principle behind the death penalty is simple, You come and fuck with us, well show you whos boss. The same philosophy lies behind caning children and making life hell for employees that dont perform up to standard. Im your superior, I know whats best, so you have to play by my rules. Such tactics I believe, are used only when the person in authority doesnt know how to deal with the subject rationally with intellect and reason, thus having to resort to threat. It should follow consequently that the death penalty is the result of a paranoid society unsure of the outcome of a more benevolent alternative. And for a society that is unsure, condemnation of such finality and certainty is utterly despicable.

The reason why most younger children are disciplined less harshly than their older siblings is because the parents have found out that corporal punishment doesnt really make a difference. Any good employer also knows that the best way to get the most profitable performance out an employee isnt by making life difficult for them. The truth is, heinous threat and repression is the worst way to abate social dissatisfaction, and are not the means to a better society. This has been proven time and again throughout history and continuously within the modern world- The countries that rank highest in the Human Development Index are also the societies that are the most tolerant.

Capital punishment, is indeed, the lazy alternative for societies that suffer from an indolent attitude towards the value of human life. As a result, these societies convince themselves that the easiest path, that of silencing life, is the surest and most effective means of solving a problem they do not understand, because it can never come back to accuse them of miscarriages of justice. Something unavoidable considering that the reason for the social ills that result from drug trafficking and taking has yet to be determined.

As it is taboo to talk about our truest opinions on drugs within Singaporean society, we will not understand how best to approach it as a collective, taking into consideration the fears, the indifference and the human curiosity all of us have towards these substances, thus approaching it in a manner that is best suited for the betterment of our society.

Just as punishing a child without understanding her first will not contribute towards her development, avoiding the difficulty of drugs by silencing the very people we should study, and pushing underground all talk that is contrary towards the interest of the lazy, self-assured conservative, will not benefit social development.

Punishment is seldom effective, and when the punishment is irreversible, than it is not for us to administer it. No matter the reasons, no matter how many times we think it through. Because it is the feeling of superiority that allows us to punish another human being, as opposed to justice that is thoroughly considered, and the feeling of superiority over another human being is dangerous. The holocaust has proven this, never ending racial elitism and religious fanaticism continues to prove it- Im a colour better than you, God favours me above you; human superiority is dangerous.

If a country is fundamentally elitist, then no amount of silencing comments against a certain religion or race will change the sentiment at the heart of her people. Importing drugs is far, far, different from believing in a religion that has been hijacked by terrorists, but the reasons that people have for broadly condemning either, without considering the reasons for their charge, and the effects their condemnation has on society, stem from the same delusion of moral, intellectual and spiritual supremacy.

The irreversibility of the death penalty means that there can never be enough proof to justify its existence. And as it is, there is no evidence that tougher, more inhuman drug laws contribute to a society that has more control over drug abuse. Given enough thought and sufficient research (most of which has already been done and easily available on the internet) anyone would know that drugs do not adversely affect people that will not otherwise find other legal alternatives to destroy themselves.

Destructive drug addiction, just like any other human habit, requires certain preconditions that result in the individual choosing that destiny. They are a means to and end, and seldom the reason for the end. They are no more destructive than tobacco or alcohol- in fact in the U.S., both tobacco and alcohol kill proportionately more smokers and drinkers than heroin and coke kill their users.

The only difference that accounts for the vast gap in the severity of reproach towards the former and the latter is that with legalized additives, we are convinced of their controllability. With the substances that have yet to be legalized, we have been convinced that they are sure to be, collectively, homogenously, the bane of society. Without substantial proof or clear understanding of drugs and the different people that use them, and the varying effects they have on different social structures, we have decided upon it as fact based upon moral outrage and fear, which is as bad a basis as any for the right to barbarically take the life of another human being.