Why protect rights of criminals at expense of victims?
THE column by Koert Meyer “Death penalty can never be justified” August 22-26) is, in my candid opinion, an aberrant and prejudicial view that is devoid of how the reality of brutal crimes is destroying families, communities and this country.
Let me state at the outset that nowhere does Meyer infer anything about the rights or the value of the victims of cold-blooded murders and rapes or the devastation that their loved ones suffer.
With due respect, he pontificates at length about the stance of political parties with regards to the death penalty.
He also befuddles one with his religious references and in general romanticises his argument with trivia that restrains common sense.
He chooses the phrase “lovers of the death penalty” – as a former history teacher and scholar who is not only amusing but dangerously disingenuous.
There are no “lovers of the death penalty”, Mr Meyer – just advocates or proponents, like I am – and for good reason.
The call for the death penalty is not a call for society to regress into some deviant world of barbarism. Neither is it a call to demonise or dilute religious beliefs.
There is a debilitating degeneration of society that is decimating the fabric of our world as life becomes more and more meaningless to those contemptuous vermin who care less and less about the value and sanctity of human life.
Whatever controversy the death penalty may court and whatever association it may have with our treacherous past, the here and the now must count for something – and it is onerous upon all of us to protect each other – even if the means may seem unbiblical.
Koert confuses me when, on the one hand he states that “the Bible is not clear about who actually should carry out executions” and then further on states that “the Bible mentions at least four ways of putting people to death”.
As if that is not enough, he invokes the words of the sixth Commandment: “do not commit murder”.
There is a level of rationality and cogency that is beseeched when one argues a controversial subject such as this, but we must not waylay the notion that the perpetrator of heinous murders and rapes is suddenly enjoined to some holy order of reverence while the innocent and hapless victims simply become an unwarranted statistic relegated only to memory.
Capital punishments, like all other punishments, are never fool-proof in their deterrent aspect. But it serves, in part, to caution possible future miscreants that they cannot play God over another human being, and then expect to live to tell the tale because the price that will be paid will be the ultimate one.
A cold-blooded and premeditated act of murder or rape deserves no sympathy nor does it require society to level any form of mercy to those committing such acts.
One may complain of retributive justice being unholy or unjust or even barbaric, but tell that to a victim breathing his last breath while being brutally bludgeoned or mercilessly stabbed or callously shot repeatedly without any recourse to defence.
Tell that to an innocent and defenceless young child being violated in ways unimaginable or a woman being forcibly and ferociously raped at the hands of a despicable, callous rapist.
Those are abominations, Mr Meyer!
Civil society, as it evolves, tries to maintain and sustain an equilibrium between the crime and the punishment meted out.
It invites a sense of humanitarianism in the consideration of punishment, but we are being forced to yield to criminals who pay scant regard for their victims.
Admittedly, society has got it wrong at times and that in itself is a travesty. But is the life of a murder or rape victim worth less than that of the filth we want to elevate to levels of sanctimony at the expense of such victims? Methinks not!
When we obfuscate the current realities of violent crimes with that of religious intonations, we are bound to travel on the road of the pedantic and the puerile, as we invoke excuses to try to reason that a murder or rape victim could well be a “child of a lesser God” – they are certainly not and never will be!
I have good reason to brook an emotional outburst on the subject as I had a murder committed in my own home but my advocacy for the death penalty stemmed from long before such a horrific event and it has not changed. One may well argue the rehabilitation of the offender with a lesser sentence that spares equal retribution – and that has merit to an extent.
But when one destroys another’s life in cold blood, or extricates the value of another’s dignity and humanity as if one is imbued with such an ordained right to do so, then I am afraid the price has to be eternal damnation – by whatever means – abomination or not.
Mr Meyer, a law-abiding society is not an uncaring one. It thrives on many foundations built in the pursuit of fulfilment and happiness; it embraces values that uphold the very sanctity of life and it manifests such values in everyday living whereby every single person should have that unalienable right to enjoy such a life.
The death penalty, good sir, is not about revenge, or anger or malice. Neither is it about the “an-eye-for-an-eye” dictum.
It is about a humanity that will not and must not tolerate the deviancy, despicability, callousness and downright inhumane acts that deprive many of their god-given rights to enjoy this short life – just like you and me. There is indeed a disturbing yet chilling disconnect in the heartless criminals who roam our country, where morals, values and respect are sacrificed at the altar of greed and selfish ends. Unless we take drastic, if not draconian measures, then we too will become a statistic – sooner rather than later.