The roots of the legal system
I would like to offer some information that I am sure readers would find of interest in the death penalty debate. I worked for many years in the British legal system and would like to clarify some of the reasons that forced change in that country. We need to go back in history to see why, and how, basic principles were established regarding legal matters.
Legal systems as we know them today have their roots in the Roman justice system, which was established to provide good governance of its occupied lands, really a method of keeping the peace, in the period known as the Pax Romana.
Something very important to keep in mind here is the fact that people back then had the same levels of intelligence as we have now. They did not have access to the information we do, but they had the same ability to reason and solve problems.
Courts of law were established to resolve issues and maintain order, by the use of an independent body, emotionally removed from the crime or issue. The reason emotion must be excluded is that it clouds the mind and leads to a result that alleviates the emotion rather than solving the long-term goal of producing a peaceful society.
Emotion is produced by chemicals in the brain, not philosophy, and the Romans could see the patterns of behavior, even if they did not understand the science. We are the only living creatures that can transcend our chemicals, and reason beyond emotion. A dog’s life is purely governed by chemicals in its brain.
There is one thing that produces the deepest emotion in us, and that is the death of a loved one. The stress this causes desperately seeks a way out, and that will manifest itself as a desire for revenge.
The Romans knew this and wanted to create a system that was not designed to seek revenge, but to deal with an issue that produced a result that was fair, and could be accepted by all the parties involved. Revenge produces an immediate emotional response that can produce an injustice worse than the original crime, for example lynching. That’s why we should not take the law into our own hands.
History is full of instances of completely innocent people being put to death to satisfy emotional cravings. That’s why courts of law around the globe are not set up to provide a system for revenge. One wrongful killing of an innocent person is one too many, as you have committed murder, the wrongful killing of another human being. It’s not manslaughter because it is premeditated. Death is final, so if you kill the wrong person, you create another set of victims who feel equal grief, meaning your system has failed.
People give themselves the right to kill other people, it does not come from anywhere else. If you look at a list of the countries that still use the death penalty, it includes all the worst human rights violators, including the US. Do you really want to stand proudly with countries like Iran and North Korea? Of course not.
Now let’s deal with victims’ rights and feelings. Any solution to a problem must be one that all parties can accept, or the problem has not been solved. Killing the criminal does bring an immediate emotional release, but that is not the reason to have a legal system. Long-term social peace is what we are trying to achieve, and killing somebody for whatever reason sends a clear signal to all people who would murder: “If you think you have the right, it’s justifiable.” This was shown to be true when using corporal punishment, which produced good behavior in the short term, but in the long term gave children the impression that when they are big enough and feel justified, they can resort to violence.
The shining example for us all comes from South Africa and Northern Ireland, who showed that rising above your emotions was the only way to gain long-term peace. Former British prime minister Margret Thatcher’s attempts at solving the Northern Ireland problem just made it worse. If we want to reduce the number of future victims, we need to consider this. The US has the death penalty and a prison population that is a national disgrace, so arguments about deterrent are hard to justify.
When it comes to the time to choose, consider why we admire former South African president Nelson Mandela and Mahatma Ghandi, rather than former US president George W. Bush and Thatcher. The example they set is inspirational rather than emotional. It’s what makes us more than chemicals.
Peter Cook
Taichung
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS