Here is one thing I don't understand. Many abolitionists claim, in the name of "humanity", that the death penalty should be abolished because we should learn to forgive crimes and not punish with "an eye for an eye", which is merely "revenge".
I don't get either aqrgument. They both seem to me to be obviously wrong.
First, who is the "we" which should forgive? Morally, a man is entitled to forgives wrongs that were done to HIM. If you steal $20 from me, I have the right to say, "never mind, I forgive you, let's not say a word about it any more". But who gives OTHER people the right to forgive in the wronged person name? What would you say if I released the person who stole $20 from you, because I forgave him in your name?
If the relatives of the victim wish to forgive the murderer, that's one thing. But the DP opponents claim that it is THEY (in the name of "humanity") that have the right to forgive, and not the relatives of the victim. If anything, the relatives of the victim are usually ignored, if not belittled, by these great "humanists of forgiveness". Who gave the DP opponents this right?
Second, the "eye for an eye" issue is NOT revenge. In context, it means two things: 1). ONLY an eye for an eye, e.g., punishment proportional to the crime--like punishing murder by death; 2). Only the eye of the CRIMINAL for an eye, e.g., not the eye of his son or other family members, as was then the current practice.
This is not "revenge". Revenge would be killing someone for pickpocketing so you could enjoy his suffering for doing you a minor wrong; revenge would be going out and killing a few of the criminal's relatives for the murder he committed so that he'll feel exactly what it's like to lose a relative. This is hardly the case here. If anything, the death penalty is a case of appropriate punishment limited to the perpetrator--in other words, of justice.
So why do we keep hearing these arguments?
I don't get either aqrgument. They both seem to me to be obviously wrong.
First, who is the "we" which should forgive? Morally, a man is entitled to forgives wrongs that were done to HIM. If you steal $20 from me, I have the right to say, "never mind, I forgive you, let's not say a word about it any more". But who gives OTHER people the right to forgive in the wronged person name? What would you say if I released the person who stole $20 from you, because I forgave him in your name?
If the relatives of the victim wish to forgive the murderer, that's one thing. But the DP opponents claim that it is THEY (in the name of "humanity") that have the right to forgive, and not the relatives of the victim. If anything, the relatives of the victim are usually ignored, if not belittled, by these great "humanists of forgiveness". Who gave the DP opponents this right?
Second, the "eye for an eye" issue is NOT revenge. In context, it means two things: 1). ONLY an eye for an eye, e.g., punishment proportional to the crime--like punishing murder by death; 2). Only the eye of the CRIMINAL for an eye, e.g., not the eye of his son or other family members, as was then the current practice.
This is not "revenge". Revenge would be killing someone for pickpocketing so you could enjoy his suffering for doing you a minor wrong; revenge would be going out and killing a few of the criminal's relatives for the murder he committed so that he'll feel exactly what it's like to lose a relative. This is hardly the case here. If anything, the death penalty is a case of appropriate punishment limited to the perpetrator--in other words, of justice.
So why do we keep hearing these arguments?
), but I also want to point out that if you're a victim, or in this case the victim's loved one, forgiving the criminal is not done for the criminal's sake, but for yours. Carrying the pain and the hate around with you the rest of your life is not healthy. At some point you have to let go.
