posted on Jul, 11 2004 @ 10:53 AM
Is it arguable from nature that we live in a "kill or be killed," world? How much is that so?
Bugs eat bugs, predators eat other animals.
People however have a rational existence, even when deluded into the commission of crimes. There is always a "rationalization," all the way around
on the issue.
The reason why most of the civilized world has abandoned the death penalty is because of the lessons of WW II, and because there may be no end to it
as an extension of the temptations of tyranny. It is a question of the rule of law verses the "law of the jungle."
We like to think of ourselves as more than only animals, however an elite government too often makes themselves or groups human, and reifies or makes
into things or animals other human individuals or groups. It is too easy to resort to the jungle and assent to retribution. What do you do once the
sentence goes? Later evidence may prove far beyond a reasonable doubt the State has done wrong. What then do you do?
You already may think you know the direction and flow of history, but if it is not progress over our forebears then what is it? You either accept
without question built in reflexes or change.
Probably a most interesting delving into this question is in the novel and movie the Green Mile. Just how we really know what really happened in a
court case, verses judicial suppositions "beyond a reasonable doubt."
For me I prefer we live in a human world, not as insects killing other insects, telling ourselves "I am noble, you are marginal, he she or it is an
animal." Even the word "dominion," in Genesis is wise stewardship, so why not for ourselves as human beings?
So I rest this case here, what are we, human beings with a soul or animals who live in a "kill or be killed," or actual "dog eat dog," existence?