Day: March 22, 2005

Caprice

I’ve noted before the observation by Jerry Pournelle and many others that we no longer live in a nation governed by the rule of law but a nation of selective inforcement of law, governed by the carpricious whim of bureaucrats and vindictive or fief-building carrerists in law enforcement; and that instead of a republic, we now are ruled by political elites and a (no longer truly) federal bureaucracy that creates “a multitude of New Offices” and sends “swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out [our] substance.” (ref: Declaration of Independence).

All this is a large part of why citizens seem to have little respect for laws (citizens? say rather, subjects… *sigh*). There are many more reasons, of course. Felony inflation—fill in a pothole (that some enviro wacko claims is a “wetlands) and commit a felony. *sheesh!* Land-grabbing by municipalities for business interests—take from the “poor” and give to the rich: the motto of modern “liberal” government. Rule by judicial fiat.

But I’d like to deal with criminal justice from a differnt angle, very briefly.

Punishment of crime. Dan, over at Riehl World View (and in the article from there published in the Blogger News Network) spurred some thought about this issue. PLEASE NOTE: Dan didn’t say anything like what I say below. What I propose below is simply a kinda riff on a very minor sub-point of a peripheral comment. his article is serious in a way this is not (although I am serious, just differently so).

If a crime is truly a crime, lets make some distinctions and use some common sense in applying justice, shall we? People who commit violent crimes—aggravated assault/battery, robbery, rape, murder, for example—get put in prison and what? They are essentially in grad school for criminals, because they’ll “serve” some time while getting advanced coursework in mayhem and then be released to commit more murder and mayhem–“better” murder and mayhem!.

Not smart. And not fair to their victims past and future. Isn’t the primary purpose of government to protect good citizens from such as these?

What could be better? Gee, I don’t know… I’d opt for “an eye for an eye” in cases of violent crime. Beat someone up, get beaten… until you learn that you’re going to get beaten worse than you dish out. Kill someone? Obvious. Be killed.

Robbery might be a lil iffy. Two crimes in one, as it were. Threaten with bodily harm and take a piece of someone’s life (that’s what your property is, you know: you paid in time and effort off the time alloted you to live for what someone steals from you), get caused bodily harm and be required to pay back more–say seven times as much, as in biblical times?–than you forcefully stole.

Drunk drivers? An easy one. Catch ’em drunk? Hand ’em a bottle of their fav poison. Disable their brakes. Clear all traffic from a very steep and dangerous mountain road. Send ’em home via that route. The liklihood of them driving while drunk and needlessly endangering others’ lives again will be moot in short order. Buh-bye! (Yeh, I have no compassion for drunk drivers. None. At. All.)

Theft by non-violent means could be more justly punished by forcing the thief to repay double what they stole. Plus interest, at 7 points above prime. At least.

Bring harm to another—physical or monetary—be required to “pay back” more than the harm you caused. That’s not just punishment but justice.

(My position on how to deal with monsters such as child abusers and many activist judges stands: state-sanctioned very public deaths by very monstrous means would seem best. This is too wimpy by far for child molesters/murderers, but at least Iran is on the right track.)

That would cover the bulk of crime. It could also provide some serious relief from having to house, clothe, feed and guard so many in prisons.

Indeed, we could just limit the number in prisons to anyone who wants to be a congresscritter and be much better off, more than likely…

*heh*

I dunno… maybe it was the use of “conundrum” in the previous post that spurred this, although I suspect it’s the other way around, since I’ve quoted from this particular bit of Kipling more than once, recently. Give a listen and then pause for a moment’s thought…

*********************************************************

THE CONUNDRUM OF THE WORKSHOPS

When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden’s green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, “It’s pretty, but is it Art?”

Wherefore he called to his wife, and fled to fashion his work anew —
The first of his race who cared a fig for the first, most dread review;
And he left his lore to the use of his sons — and that was a glorious gain
When the Devil chuckled “Is it Art?” in the ear of the branded Cain.

They fought and they talked in the North and the South,
they talked and they fought in the West,
Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest —
Had rest till that dank blank-canvas dawn when the dove was preened to start,
And the Devil bubbled below the keel: “It’s human, but is it Art?”

They builded a tower to shiver the sky and wrench the stars apart,
Till the Devil grunted behind the bricks: “It’s striking, but is it Art?”
The stone was dropped at the quarry-side and the idle derrick swung,
While each man talked of the aims of Art, and each in an alien tongue.

The tale is as old as the Eden Tree — and new as the new-cut tooth —
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: “You did it, but was it Art?”

We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yelk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: “It’s clever, but is it Art?”

When the flicker of London sun falls faint on the Club-room’s green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mould —
They scratch with their pens in the mould of their graves,
and the ink and the anguish start,
For the Devil mutters behind the leaves: “It’s pretty, but is it Art?”

Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the Four Great Rivers flow,
And the Wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept and softly scurry through,
By the favour of God we might know as much — as our father Adam knew!

*********************************************************

Oh, what the heck… just go here once a day and read a bit of Kipling.

Thomas Sowell weighs in on the illegitimacy of so-called “Liberal” agitation in the Terri Schiavo case

Thomas Sowell rightly pegs the disconnect between recent so-called “Liberals'” arguments for the murder of terri Schiavo:

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo’s life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic — ostensibly over state’s rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges — on which the whole liberal agenda depends — a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

I suspect the reasons Sowell pegs are but two of (too) many. The disconnect of so-called “Liberals” (who apparently have not once ounce of liberal blood in their cold dead hearts) who agitate on the one hand to spare the lives of cold-blooded killers yet rail that a man who has deserted his wife must be allowed to torture her to death simply because she is profoundly disabled is simply beyond reason.

If ever there was a clearly definable characteristic of children of Satan is must be this: the blood thirst for innocent life and the protection of monsters who cold-bloodedly take innocent (to the degree that anyone is innocent *heh*) life.

“Liberals”? Children of Moloch, rather.

(“Moloch [the sun god of the Caananites] was represented as a huge bronze statue with the head of a bull. The statue was hollow, and inside there burned a fire which colored the Moloch a glowing red. Children were placed on the hands of the statue. Through an ingenious system the hands were raised to the mouth (as if Moloch were eating) and the children fell into the fire where they were consumed by the flames. The people gathered before the Moloch were dancing on the sounds of flutes and tambourines to drown out the screams of the victims.” * The victims were typically children. That’s right: the helpless, the powerless, those dependant upon the protection of their parents were sacrificed… by their parents. Burned alive. At least it was faster than starvation and dehydration. Sounds kinda like a “husband” and judge now in the news… )