Rob, Rambling - A lot of things interest me...

foodinmouth has written a long ol’ post about the death penalty being ruled unconstitutional in the case of child rape in the US. It seems that some states introduced this a few years back, though no-one has yet been sentenced in this manner.

foodinmouth argues vehemently that the death penalty is a good thing in this situation, and that it the time on death row should actually be reduced, seemingly on an economic basis. 2 appeals within 2 years, and then zap/inject/hang the guy. It’s invariably a guy…

I firmly and completely disagree with the death penalty 100%. In absolutely every single case, without fail. I don’t care what the person did; the state should not have the power to end their life. Yes, even if they killed hundreds; or hundreds of children; or raped a child.

Why do I take this position? For one, I think that there are punishments worse than death. If the punishment should fit the crime (which is only one theory of punishment), then the state can deal out other forms. Most of these would be equally unpalatable, usually involving torture of some kind, so we don’t use them.

Our punishment of choice is depriving people of their liberty, in a prison. Now, some say that this is insufficient, especially as prisons have become “too comfortable” and lax. Why should they have TVs in their cells, goes the cry. This, for me, is detail. The essential aspect of prison is removal of liberty.

They are unable to do anything without the express permission of an authoritative figure. Nothing. No freedom of movement, of association, of individuality, of spirit. All of these freedoms are restricted or removed completely.

On a lesser scale, this also applies to parole, electronic tagging, and curfews. All of them are a form of control of freedom, of placing restrictions on liberty to some degree, dependent on the severity of the crime.

Why is this restriction on liberty a sufficient punishment for any crime, in my opinion? It’s because liberty is the one thing we take for granted nowadays. There are certain things we can’t/shouldn’t do (murder, rape a child, shoplift), but these are the restrictions on liberty we put up with for the greater good of society.

To remove liberty is to take away one of the most important things about being alive: our freedom to do as we please. To my mind, this is punishment enough.

foodinmouth also says that he cannot envisage any scenario in which someone would allow a convicted child rapist who has been “rehabbed” (his air quotes) to babysit their child.

Rehabilitation is another way of looking at punishment. The theory goes that everyone is capable of acting like a “normal” person, and that the aberration that caused their crime can be removed from their personality. The punishment which comes as a result of their crime should incorporate appropriate rehabilitation.

Is this always possible? I would say no. Science has shown us that there are certain genetic and physiological predispositions towards such things as violence, sex and other actions. Should we thus rehabilitate genetically? A tough question, and not one I am in any way capable of or willing to answer.

Most western countries now use methods of rehabilitation, often intertwined with the restrictions on liberty. Crash a car? Then you must attend x weeks of driving classes at this given time. It gets tougher the more severe the crime, obviously.

To my mind, foodinmouth’s argument is pure ad hominem, an appeal to emotion that fails to engage the debate properly. The mere thought of a child being raped is so appalling and grotesque that one cannot help the emotions which it gives rise to.

This clouds the debate too much, preventing a rational argument from taking place.

In this place, I would argue that child rapists (and their ilk) should be subject to further restrictions on their liberty once out of prison. Control orders as to where they are allowed to live (i.e. not near a school), what jobs they can take, where they can go, what they can do.

In this sense, we are recognising the severity of the crime they have committed. Even though they may be out of prison, their liberty is strongly restricted, and any breach results in a return to an even more restrictive regime of prison itself.

In conclusion, I argue firmly against the death penalty, and would request that any responses to the above refrain from ad hominem arguments. I will respond to reasoned arguments, but not to anyone who asks, “What if it were your child?”.