Death Penalty
So for the majority of my life I have been against the death penalty, but my opinion has recently put on the fence. While I still feel that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, a recent reading of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Social Contract," displayed some interesting points.
First, it was my opinion that every citizen of the world, regardless of nationhood, bears the right to life. That statement is still true and has not been altered by my findings. The key alteration of thought with my own beliefs, is what constitutes an active or virtuous citizen. While I still think that a lifetime of incarceration is a reasonable punishment for crimes that our judiciary system deems eligible for death
Rousseau's "Social Contract" speaks on the social agreement we have all made with our societies, governments, and overall humanity from a political stand point. By joining, remaining, contributing and participating in modern society and government, we have all made an implied agreement with whatever governing body to obey it's laws and work towards the common good.
On death, and the act of having your life taken from you, Rousseau reinforces that no citizen of a city, state, country or even of the world has the right to take another's life without it being deemed necessary for self preservation. He then goes to state that "it is in order that we may not fall victims to an assassin," further engraving the notion of the individual's right to life. But in the same sentence, he continues to say, "that we consent to die if we ourselves turn assassins." Initially I did not agree with the second part of that statement. But as I continued on with the "Social Contract", I began to second guess my original thoughts.
Regardless of citizenship or nationhood, we have all agreed to laws and customs within our respective societies. By remaining, contributing, and participating in society, we must continue to abide by the laws set forth by the governing body. Failure to do so, regardless of the severity of the crimes, immediately breaks the social contract we all have with our nation or society and should be punished accordingly. Rousseau claims that "every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country;" he continues his claim by stating that "by violating it's it's laws he ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it." While that may seem harsh, I do see some validity within the statement. One cannot commit a theft or murder or rape without ignoring the laws set forth, not only by government but by nature. Breaking laws and customs directly challenges the power and rules a government or society has been given by a mutual agreement of it's citizens. Therefore the violator is not only challenging the laws set by the governing body, but also challenging or threatening the citizens themselves.
The laws of a society have been put into place in order to achieve the greatest good of that society. Going against them hinders a society's goal of achieving the greatest good for all of it's citizens. No single man has the right to take away another man's natural rights. In order to keep with the preservation of the society, through trial and judgement, criminals must be punished as enemies of war and have their civic rights stricken. This must be done because as Rousseau states, "the preservation of the state is inconsistent with his own... In putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy." The term enemy is used as the assassin is directly challenging the authority of the state or nation and acting in a manner that will not achieve a greater good.
Violators of the social contract may be exiled to prison, but when there is a continued danger emanating from the violator, shall face the death penalty. According to Rousseau, "the state has no right to put to death, even for the sake of example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger." That statement is valid, but still lends itself to the allowance of executing the death penalty.
While I agree with his notion of the social contract and abiding by it, I still cannot agree whole hearted with his use of death penalty. I'm sure that if someone close to me was murdered I would want the culprit to see the same fate he laid upon the victim. But my personal feelings and emotions are just that, personal and private. They do not always agree with that of the greater good or advancement of the society. There are definitely instances where I feel the death penalty should be executed justly and swiftly, as in the case of serial killers, or chronic pedophiles, neither of which deserve any rights including the one to live. But in the preservation of society and the advancement of it's citizens, allowing the governing body to take away one's god given right to live is something I cannot say I agree or disagree with. I do however feel that exile from society(jail) and stripping of a felon's rights within that society is not only a reasonable punishment, but one that shows compassion for the victims as our rights are something that virtuous citizens not only relish, but we also fight for in order to protect. Stripping one of these civic rights, in my eyes seems punishment enough. And doing so, also shows compassion for the violator by showing respect of life and not taking that right away from them.
The social contact we have all agreed on, is subject to change and variation. Severity of violations as well as future danger towards the greater good need to be taken into account when citizens under this compact are found to be in violation of it's rules or laws. And the death penalty should only be executed, as Rousseau stated, when there is a future threat of danger to a society, it's citizens, and it's greatest good.
Our role as citizens is to be as virtuous as possible in order the continue the preservation and advancement of our society. We must put aside personal opinion and emotion and abide by morals, laws, and customs within our society. We also have the luxury of being a part of a society that allows for input from its citizens in order to set morals, laws, and customs that will align with the greater good of the community at large. The values and interests of a society's citizens must be upheld by citizens and immigrants alike. And as a modern and compassionate society, this can be attained, in my opinion, without use of the death penalty, except for in the most severe instances.
First, it was my opinion that every citizen of the world, regardless of nationhood, bears the right to life. That statement is still true and has not been altered by my findings. The key alteration of thought with my own beliefs, is what constitutes an active or virtuous citizen. While I still think that a lifetime of incarceration is a reasonable punishment for crimes that our judiciary system deems eligible for death
Rousseau's "Social Contract" speaks on the social agreement we have all made with our societies, governments, and overall humanity from a political stand point. By joining, remaining, contributing and participating in modern society and government, we have all made an implied agreement with whatever governing body to obey it's laws and work towards the common good.
On death, and the act of having your life taken from you, Rousseau reinforces that no citizen of a city, state, country or even of the world has the right to take another's life without it being deemed necessary for self preservation. He then goes to state that "it is in order that we may not fall victims to an assassin," further engraving the notion of the individual's right to life. But in the same sentence, he continues to say, "that we consent to die if we ourselves turn assassins." Initially I did not agree with the second part of that statement. But as I continued on with the "Social Contract", I began to second guess my original thoughts.
Regardless of citizenship or nationhood, we have all agreed to laws and customs within our respective societies. By remaining, contributing, and participating in society, we must continue to abide by the laws set forth by the governing body. Failure to do so, regardless of the severity of the crimes, immediately breaks the social contract we all have with our nation or society and should be punished accordingly. Rousseau claims that "every malefactor, by attacking social rights, becomes on forfeit a rebel and a traitor to his country;" he continues his claim by stating that "by violating it's it's laws he ceases to be a member of it; he even makes war upon it." While that may seem harsh, I do see some validity within the statement. One cannot commit a theft or murder or rape without ignoring the laws set forth, not only by government but by nature. Breaking laws and customs directly challenges the power and rules a government or society has been given by a mutual agreement of it's citizens. Therefore the violator is not only challenging the laws set by the governing body, but also challenging or threatening the citizens themselves.
The laws of a society have been put into place in order to achieve the greatest good of that society. Going against them hinders a society's goal of achieving the greatest good for all of it's citizens. No single man has the right to take away another man's natural rights. In order to keep with the preservation of the society, through trial and judgement, criminals must be punished as enemies of war and have their civic rights stricken. This must be done because as Rousseau states, "the preservation of the state is inconsistent with his own... In putting the guilty to death, we slay not so much the citizen as an enemy." The term enemy is used as the assassin is directly challenging the authority of the state or nation and acting in a manner that will not achieve a greater good.
Violators of the social contract may be exiled to prison, but when there is a continued danger emanating from the violator, shall face the death penalty. According to Rousseau, "the state has no right to put to death, even for the sake of example, any one whom it can leave alive without danger." That statement is valid, but still lends itself to the allowance of executing the death penalty.
While I agree with his notion of the social contract and abiding by it, I still cannot agree whole hearted with his use of death penalty. I'm sure that if someone close to me was murdered I would want the culprit to see the same fate he laid upon the victim. But my personal feelings and emotions are just that, personal and private. They do not always agree with that of the greater good or advancement of the society. There are definitely instances where I feel the death penalty should be executed justly and swiftly, as in the case of serial killers, or chronic pedophiles, neither of which deserve any rights including the one to live. But in the preservation of society and the advancement of it's citizens, allowing the governing body to take away one's god given right to live is something I cannot say I agree or disagree with. I do however feel that exile from society(jail) and stripping of a felon's rights within that society is not only a reasonable punishment, but one that shows compassion for the victims as our rights are something that virtuous citizens not only relish, but we also fight for in order to protect. Stripping one of these civic rights, in my eyes seems punishment enough. And doing so, also shows compassion for the violator by showing respect of life and not taking that right away from them.
The social contact we have all agreed on, is subject to change and variation. Severity of violations as well as future danger towards the greater good need to be taken into account when citizens under this compact are found to be in violation of it's rules or laws. And the death penalty should only be executed, as Rousseau stated, when there is a future threat of danger to a society, it's citizens, and it's greatest good.
Our role as citizens is to be as virtuous as possible in order the continue the preservation and advancement of our society. We must put aside personal opinion and emotion and abide by morals, laws, and customs within our society. We also have the luxury of being a part of a society that allows for input from its citizens in order to set morals, laws, and customs that will align with the greater good of the community at large. The values and interests of a society's citizens must be upheld by citizens and immigrants alike. And as a modern and compassionate society, this can be attained, in my opinion, without use of the death penalty, except for in the most severe instances.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract can be found at:
http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_02.htm
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone
posted by iceCOLD at
2:02 PM
1 Comments
