I saw karma and the devil walking side by side
So I’m here, doing some thinking, often dangerous, rarely productive, and my thoughts drifted to my poor juggling skills….no, not really, I rock, no seriously, I lie. I was thinking about the whole process of creation and what the process entails in terms of the authority of the creator over the creation. You and I make something we’ve got all the rights in the world to smash it to bits, blow it up, set it on fire, etc. But if what two people create is another life, they then relinquish all worldly rights to destroy that life without possible jail time, if convicted. This emphasizes the importance and sanctity of human life…justifiable.
But if that human then takes the life of another human, we’ve got another party to add, THE STATE…duh duh duh. Getting’ a little crowded, don’t ya think? The state feels that it has a right to exact revenge on behalf of the now deplete human life, the victim, by taking the life of the still thriving in stripes and chains human. If the parents don’t have the right to kill the child, their earthly creation, where does the state get off thinking it has the right? Who died and made the justice system responsible for life and death, other than the victim?
It seems to me, and maybe I’ve just gone insane, that if anyone should have the earthly right to take away life, shouldn’t it be the parents? That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be offenders of justice who continue to murder, even though only the divine creator and the earthly parents would theoretically have such a right. We’ve proven that already, murder continues on a daily basis, even though technically only the creator (and by that I mean god/time-in the sense of natural death) has the right to take away life. So, on the playing field, if you’re an atheist or agnostic, like so many of us are, to you, the only people allowed to take away life are NOBODY!!!!!…unless you agree with state practices of capital punishment. But seriously, think about it. The rights of the creator on earth are deplete, smiting by the hands of god went out of style long ago, leaving murder and capital punishment the only forms of taking away life. Does that put them on the same plane? Good question. If we’re gonna go all crazy and actually allow murder, don’t you think the hierarchical field should look something more like:
DIVINE CREATOR - ultimate authority in taking away life
+
PARENTS - earthly creators and care givers, can take away life if they deem fit, or have gone insane, we seem to be okay with that
+
And THEN…………..
THE STATE - damn the man for believing he has a say in everything anyway
**Whereby, Tier 1, the divine creator, may be removed and replaced with Tier 2, the parents, dependent upon religious affiliation.**
Doesn’t that seem more appropriate? Why should the state always be first? What did they actually do in the whole process of conception?…nada. That’s right. They’ve got no rights. Or at least they shouldn’t. And in conclusion, if the state continues to believe that it holds the right to degrade and destroy the sanctity of a life, whether criminal or not, shouldn’t it then allow the parents undeniable access to abortion facilities, for that would then keep in line with the hierarchical creation/destruction process.
In conclusion, other than I think I’ve gone crazy, I think capital punishment is a crock. If human rights aren’t your thing, look at it from a monetary perspective. The prospect of incarcerating a criminal for the rest of his life, whether that be 5, 10, or 80 years, would be cheaper than following through with our antiquated justice system and putting him/her on trial and then to death by either electrocution or lethal injection. Craziness. Furthermore, following a cost-benefit ratio, is the cost worth the benefit?…all people die…does it matter if it’s today or in 5 years for a criminal, it’s not like they’re really going anywhere other than federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Besides, how fucked up is it that one man’s benefit is another man’s death? If that ain’t the kicker.
But if that human then takes the life of another human, we’ve got another party to add, THE STATE…duh duh duh. Getting’ a little crowded, don’t ya think? The state feels that it has a right to exact revenge on behalf of the now deplete human life, the victim, by taking the life of the still thriving in stripes and chains human. If the parents don’t have the right to kill the child, their earthly creation, where does the state get off thinking it has the right? Who died and made the justice system responsible for life and death, other than the victim?
It seems to me, and maybe I’ve just gone insane, that if anyone should have the earthly right to take away life, shouldn’t it be the parents? That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be offenders of justice who continue to murder, even though only the divine creator and the earthly parents would theoretically have such a right. We’ve proven that already, murder continues on a daily basis, even though technically only the creator (and by that I mean god/time-in the sense of natural death) has the right to take away life. So, on the playing field, if you’re an atheist or agnostic, like so many of us are, to you, the only people allowed to take away life are NOBODY!!!!!…unless you agree with state practices of capital punishment. But seriously, think about it. The rights of the creator on earth are deplete, smiting by the hands of god went out of style long ago, leaving murder and capital punishment the only forms of taking away life. Does that put them on the same plane? Good question. If we’re gonna go all crazy and actually allow murder, don’t you think the hierarchical field should look something more like:
DIVINE CREATOR - ultimate authority in taking away life
+
PARENTS - earthly creators and care givers, can take away life if they deem fit, or have gone insane, we seem to be okay with that
+
And THEN…………..
THE STATE - damn the man for believing he has a say in everything anyway
**Whereby, Tier 1, the divine creator, may be removed and replaced with Tier 2, the parents, dependent upon religious affiliation.**
Doesn’t that seem more appropriate? Why should the state always be first? What did they actually do in the whole process of conception?…nada. That’s right. They’ve got no rights. Or at least they shouldn’t. And in conclusion, if the state continues to believe that it holds the right to degrade and destroy the sanctity of a life, whether criminal or not, shouldn’t it then allow the parents undeniable access to abortion facilities, for that would then keep in line with the hierarchical creation/destruction process.
In conclusion, other than I think I’ve gone crazy, I think capital punishment is a crock. If human rights aren’t your thing, look at it from a monetary perspective. The prospect of incarcerating a criminal for the rest of his life, whether that be 5, 10, or 80 years, would be cheaper than following through with our antiquated justice system and putting him/her on trial and then to death by either electrocution or lethal injection. Craziness. Furthermore, following a cost-benefit ratio, is the cost worth the benefit?…all people die…does it matter if it’s today or in 5 years for a criminal, it’s not like they’re really going anywhere other than federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison. Besides, how fucked up is it that one man’s benefit is another man’s death? If that ain’t the kicker.
posted by Chishiki Lauren at 12:52 AM
1 Comments:
... It is a strange concept that nation-states somehow have the authority to render ethical actions that would otherwise be considered immoral. Somehow, kidnapping becomes arrest; murder, capital punishment; and extortion, taxation, simply by the force of common consent. I'm not saying the idea has no merit, but it's a strange idea nonetheless.
Yet with regard specifically to capital punishment, I agree with you that the practice is at least counterproductive if not downright immoral. I think the capital-punishment debate unfortunately focuses too much on what criminals deserve (or what victims deserve in terms of receiving some sort of retributional recompense) and too little on how the act of execution degrades the society that participates in it. In other words, it's not so much a question of whether the criminal deserves to die as it is a question of whether we deserve better than to degrade ourselves through the act of taking a life. Anyhow, I just stumbled upon your blog today, and I've quite enjoyed it. Hope you don't mind my adding my own two cents ...
Post a Comment
<< Home