Thursday, August 26, 2010

To Kill or Not to Kill?

Where there has been civilization, there has been law and punishment. Undoubtedly one of the most debated upon punishment is capital punishment. To be or not to be? Those who are pro-life would argue, who are we to take the life of another man/woman when we ourselves are but mere mortals? This I agree to a certain extent. I would very much rather have this criminal serve out his punishment in a more useful way, provided he is capable of doing so. I would force them to empathize with others, the fastest being through personal experience.

For example, sentencing a murderer or drug trafficker to death would be too convenient as the criminal learns nothing or at least does not get to apply what he/she has learnt in this life. Instead, I would have this criminal save another man's life to compensate having taken away a life. How can he/she save a life? Easy! I'd get him/her to choose to donate an organ of his preference. It could be a cornea, a kidney, part of his lung, bone marrow, skin graft and more. For every life he/she saves, his sentence would be reduced, subject to a minimum. Of course, the suitability of his/her donations will be subject to the standard tests as with all organ donors. The criminal gets to see the before and after life of his/her recipient (reality tv), and they themselves will now live a 'compromised' life (for the lack of a better word). This forces his/her mind to follow his/her body and accept the harshness of such a life. If you want to change a mindset, it's always easier to start with the body and your mind will eventually follow through.

So what kind of criminals should go through this Pay-It-Forward Program? This is very much negotiable. The no-brainers would be murderers, man slaughterers, rapists, pedophiles, drug traffickers, terrorists and arms dealers. How much damage can a person do when he/she is already blind (both eyes donated), only has one kidney and part of the liver removed and is released from jail only when he/she is 50? I would also be open to the idea of public voting. As for those petty criminals, they would at the very least be subject to hard labour as a contribution back to society. Create farms within the prisons for them to produce vegetables and such which are then used to feed themselves and charitable organizations. Production of clothes which are then also given to welfare groups and even as disaster relief aid. The options are endless.

Then who are the ones who should still be sentenced to death? Those who are sickly, old (above 65yrs old) or mentally unsound. Because they would not be able to significantly contribute to the rest and would be a mere liability. This is consistent with my earlier blog that certain people should just be put to sleep.

Tell me, what would instill greater fear in those in society who are more inclined to commit crime? An outright death sentence or the prospect of being a living dead (no eyes, 1 kidney, half a liver and more)?