I recently read an article from the ACLU, written by Adam Bedau. It explained, quite eloquently, that for society to execute a murderer made society no better than the murderer himself.He said, The executioner is no better than the criminal.I was impressed by this moral stance, but I was surprised to read that he failed to apply this logic consistently. For example, the he went on to argue that life imprisonment would be a more appropriate penalty for murder than death.Using this ACLU logic, it appears that for our society to lock someone in a room against his will and not free him for a considerable length of time makes our society no better than the everyday kidnapper. But if an individual locked another up against his will, wouldnt the ACLU view this as kidnapping.Being from the Methodist faith I found this argument somewhat difficult. For in the Bible there is a scripture that states, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.I presume the ACLU would agree that beatings or torture are also unacceptable forms of punishment for crimes. They seem to be inhumane. Yet in Eastern cultures, if one steals something, they lose a finger or two and sometimes an entire hand depending on the severity of the crime. This seems to be reason enough not to steal, as in these cultures there is a very low theft rate.Maybe the ACLU would find a monetary fine a more appropriate punishment? For society to take money away from someone against his will without giving him any tangible goods in return would make society a thief.Of course, the Bedau also explains that capital punishment brutalizes society, leading to even more murders. If we, as a society, adopt this no-punishment position, it logically follows that there would be less crime. Once criminals realized that no matter what they did, no fellow citizen would lift a finger to stop them, why, theyd just be so overcome with the generosity of their neighbors that theyd naturally be inclined to become ...
