"All those caught polluting the air will be burned at stake." -- Wizard of Id comic strip
It's almost impossible to justify acts of destruction to reduce destruction. Pain breeds pain, war breeds war. But there is one good argument for retribution, for committing a criminal's own crimes against them. To kill a killer, can you live with yourself?
Take it at face value. If you destroy something that would itself have destroyed once, then the sum result of the experience was zero, neither good nor bad. If you destroy something that would itself have caused innumerable destruction, then the sum result of the experience is good, and will keep getting better the more destruction it prevents.
It's clear then that hindering in the name of prevention is justified. And that's a weakness of reason that has allowed the greatest evil to happen.
"Kill those Serbian bastards before they kill us all!" "Kill those Bosnian bastards before they kill us all!"
When you hear about someone being hindered, harmed or killed to prevent further harm, hindrance and killing from them, consider who is doing the accusing. The leader may be great, the leader may be wise, but I maintain that no person in the history of my experience has ever been able to predict the future.
Sure it's okay to kill someone if they /will/ kill, but who's to say they will kill? How can it be given one way or the other? Even if you base past experience on future predictions, can you be certain they were convicted of the heinous crime justly and fairly?
One thing is certain. If the first action is to harm, not help, I get very suspicious. If someone is not given the benefit of the doubt, and all avenues of peaceable solutions not explored, it is probably not right to jump to the punishments.
Instead of killing them before they kill you, is there an easier way to get them to stop killing you? How about trade agreements, land distribution, communication, understanding. It's important not to let them continue killing, to heal rather than appease, but it's also important to not kill, to not show the enemy a mirror of themselves.
Not all peaceful methods of prevention are negotiations and asking permission. What if the other side suddenly stopped being able to make weapons? That's the "public" strategy the USA has used a few times in past wars. Nagasaki had shipyards and weapon factories, after all. Another method is forming a blockade. Generally it's not very effective since most people are too stupid to connect it to their leader, and the leader himself (yes, HIMself) generally doesn't feel pressure at all. (My people? What people? There is only me! *two minutes later* My people, my gratitude and love goes out to you all in these dark times of our oppressors...)
As for individual criminals, the main key to preventing a crime I think is finding out the reason it happened. Rehabilitation is a woefully inadequate process because we don't know, or won't admit the reason people do bad things. If someone does something wrong because they enjoy it, why do they enjoy it?
Does it make up for their lack of power elsewhere? Give them a job where they feel important. Do they enjoy it because of sheer twisted pleasure? Not much you can do here, psychological counseling and aggressive therapy can sometimes help but these tendencies are generally set very early on in life. Are they doing wrong because of uncontrollable emotions, anger, rage, shock? Anger management is something else we should be focusing on; I know there must be a way to deal with it.
If all else fails, well they might be broken and need to be put down. If you don't want to pay for them to be in a cage all their life, you can always chop off their hands, disembowel them, and leave them naked in the forest. Personally I'd just kill them cleanly and smoothly, not to make up for anything they've done, but simply as a preventative measure. And this is only if I'm completely sure that they indeed will do something unacceptable to life.
It's one of the reasons I'm a pacifist; I fear that in a battle I'd make a cold and efficient killer. It's a bit late to be brainwashed, but I'll continue avoiding it like the plague. Ultimately, there is never a need to be a soldier or to fight in a war. It's horribly wrong that anyone would kill someone they don't know at the orders of another.
Besides when it comes to war, I give more respect to an assassin than a soldier. Both are murderers, but the assassin murders the people who deserve it; the soldier just murders anyone in front of him. I wish we didn't have to have soldiers.
War or murder, or rape, or assault, all are crimes we would like to see stop right now. Even if we have to resort to such tactics, it's okay as long as we're reducing the amount of those tactics in general. But all avenues of moral prevention should be exhausted first, including the ones that hinder or undermine. Furthermore, no one is really qualified enough to say what crimes will happen, or objective enough to say what crimes did happen.
If you've ever had to kill and feel regrets, or wonder what makes you different than the killer you've killed, take this to heart. There is one thing I have seen common in every person who ever deserved to die: a closed mind. Those willing to question themselves still have hope. Of course if you're a soldier, you probably are the same as the killer you've killed, so I can't help ya. ;) Hey, at least you walked away from it.
Comment
Index
Previous
(Break Outta Frames!)
Next
(Powergaming: Is Not Roleplaying, Is Ego-Tripping)