Documentary: Death Penalty in China, and comment



As long as science is regarded as relevant only in the production of gadgets and cures, and not in the mass appreciation of society, it is to be expected that the ill-educated masses will choose to support the capital consequence of particuar crimes as opposed to appreciating crime as a consequence of a system many have learnt to thrive and profit within. In that, many would choose to see criminals as products of their own volition as opposed to by-products of our self-absorbed and mutually alienated preoccupation. ~ ed







Death Penalty

noun
The punishment of execution, administered to someone legally convicted of a capital crime
An attempt to exonerate the overarching system and ourselves from complicity in the production of the criminal.


An effective way to detract the attention of the masses from the unjust condition of the overarching system is to enable 'justice' and 'fairness' to prevail at the popular level. For instance, the application of the 'eye for an eye' principle gives one an impression that 'reciprocity' is being observed. We take the life of one who has taken the life of another. We return a disfavour for a disfavour. Everything seems to balance out. But the overarching variables that lead to the production of the 'criminal' is left out by common consideration in the course of, and due to, this process.

The class system, defined along varying lines, distributes varying degrees of motivation, aspiration, desperation, opportunities, vantages from whence one might appreciate life. It maintains a spirit of mutual alienation and opportunism, promotes apathy, the contraction of the family unit to primitive levels ranging from one's immediate family to just oneself, etc, etc, etc.

This amplifies the 'me first, at your expense and despite your interests' tendency. Generically, the other is reduced to little more than a means (amplified in capitalist/legalist-confucian cultures). And than the state steps in to ensure that the worst examples of a system, designed to maintain the aristocracies and monarchies of the past in 'democratic' forms, is put on a leash.

Those we send to the gallows differ from 'respectable citizens' in degree, not orientation; in means, not aspiration. When we plot the starting point of human development at any point, we open up the possibility of both the best and worst consequences of it. Mutual alienation does not only promote mutual apathy and opportunism, but the generic view that the other is a means through the exploitation or abuse of which we are satisfied.

The existence of a jury, or justice 'being seen to be done', hence become little more than attempts to distract ourselves into thinking that since we are making the decisions, putting into power those responsible for producing laws, being 'reciprocal' by fitting the punishment to the crime, allowing the public to observe proceedings, or the press or international observers to report on its course, etc, etc, then, we must certainly be a just society.

The judicious means by which we get around unjust conditions does not render the latter just.


In the courtroom settings, we view 'the dock' as the locale wherein the one who is on trial is interned. But in the eye of the wise, the locale wherein the judge, the jury, the public, parliament, and those without, serve as 'docks' whose occupants have to first be proven to be innocent of complicity before anyone can be put in the dock.

As long as science is regarded as relevant only in the production of gadgets and cures, and not in the mass appreciation of society, it is to be expected that the ill-educated masses will choose to support the capital consequence of particuar crimes as opposed to appreciating crime as a consequence of a system many have learnt to thrive and profit within. In that, many would choose to see criminals as products of their own volition as opposed to by-products of our self-absorbed and mutually alienated preoccupations.


ed



0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo