Tag Archives: criminals

The Ethics of the Underworld

1 Jun

 I love the Israeli TV show “The Arbitrator”. It’s about a family of organized criminals. There seems to be more justice there than among law-abiding society.

You betray them? You die.
You collaborate with the enemy? You die.
You cheat on them? You die.
You kill their child/parent/spouse? They kill yours.
You break your word? They break your spine.
You beat a pregnant woman to the point she loses her baby and can’t have any more? You die.
Breakers of words get broken, destroyers of life get destroyed.

Law never seems to cover nearly enough on one end, but too much on the other. You liberate a tortured animal, you go to prison. You share the crimes of your government with your fellow citizens, you go to prison. You make love to a consenting minor who regrets nothing, you go to prison. But you cheat and betray, you cause hurt and even suicide, and that’s fine by law. You order a genocide (america’s war on Iraq), you get re-elected.
Law makes little sense that way. A traitor can do as much damage as a rapist. One violates trust, the other violates intimacy, but both violate a deeply precious, vital, and vulnerable element of a person’s soul that they need in order to be strong in their personal integrity. So why should one be punished, while the other one gets away with it? Same with school bullies. Victims of real crimes can be utterly devastated, and for that the perpetrator is punished. Yet bullying victims can sustain just as much damage, and are left to cope alone while their tormentors are rewarded by lack of consequence? Makes no sense.

I don’t think it’s right that the victim has to deal with the damage done while the pereptrator gets to get on with their life. It doesn’t matter to me how a victim responds. I don’t think there is responsibility in sustaining or dealing with something you didn’t choose to happen to you, but that was forced upon you needlessly and deliberately by a third party. It is not blameless misfortune like an earthquake or disease. It is a choice action that has been forced upon the victim. And so, any and all responsibility should lie with the perpetrator. Which is why it’s nice that in the Arbitrator, the person who started it when they did not need to, ends up dead, in a wheelchair, or worse.

You can’t spell reaction without re-, which means it’s a REsult, a REsponse to what has been done to you. Would I tell anyone to fuck off if they didn’t deliberately offend me first? Would a person be in prison if they hadn’t committed a crime first? So why should the response/ibility to any other type of transgression be anyone but the perpetrator’s problem? You can always, without exception, choose to not be the initiator of evil. The choice is yours and with it, the consequence. Victims have limited options – the most important limit being the inability to not have transgression happen to them. You get the stone rolling = it’s your fault and yours alone if someone doesn’t make it out of its path in time. Just as not everyone can outrun a rolling stone, not everyone can heal from a non-criminal transgression. A victim hasn’t got 100% control over the degree of damage done to them, a perpetrator always has 100% control over whether or not to initiate transgression. This should relieve the victim of any and all responsibility. A soul can be broken like a bone. One can have as little control over how fast the soul heals, as one has over the bone.

After all, when a crime is one by law, the perpetrator gets punished no matter if and how much damage was done to the victim. Some rape victims brush it off easily, others kill themselves, but the rapist still gets the same punishment and nobody tells the victim it’s their job to suck it up and move on. The perpetrator is still punished, the victim defended. Why not in the case of liars, cheaters, traitors etc.? Morally, they are no better than legal criminals. The underworld/organized crime is cruel, but at least people reap what they sow. Law-abiding citizens? One does something that kills the other’s soul, but the body remains intact, so he gets away with it.

One of my favorites on that show was when Nomie Spoonie ordered her lover killed. He pretended to love her to get in her pants, then promised to marry her with no intention of doing so, so he got what he deserved: his best friend was ordered to kill him, but only severed his spine and put him in a wheelchair, to be forever the captive of Nomie Spoonie, now legally married as promised, and miserable as deserved. That is justice. That needs to be legalized.

Reality makes no sense.


Death Penalty and Bleeding Hearts

12 Jun

I was just going to write here how I think that any violent criminal, sexual or non-sexual, should, upon conviction, be made to kneel and have a bullet implanted into the back of his top vertebra. However, some discussion with a friend and original research, requires me to go a bit deeper than that.

For example, this: http://www.reprieve.org.uk/tvandradio/2010_02_17_DP_Campaign_Right_to_life_evil_people/

Prisoners on death row are usually people who have suffered terrible abuses and become the product of their environment.”

Cute. It is true that people can change and regret their action, and that they are sometimes, not always, the product of a bad environment. However, how does that comfort their victims or, when the victims are dead, those who mourn them? What good is it to those that have been wronged by the actions of some misunderstood poor soul (sarcasm), to know that the monster who destroyed their lives, can be helped? Do we really owe consideration for these factors? Does a mother whose child has been kidnapped, raped, and strangled, owe to give thought to the perpetrator’s tormented soul and abusive parents? Is it the problem of the man who got beaten up by “misunderstood” immigrant punks that the latter feel rejected by society? 


The only one who owes a monster sympathy and regard for its humanity, is the one who made the monster. No difficult childhood, no broken home, no poverty, and no mental illness is an excuse to victimize the innocent. When it does happen, the safety and healing of victims and potential victims should be the sole concern of those with the power to impact the matter. 

It may be true that a murderer has also saved a puppy from drowning, or made children laugh in his clown costume. It may be true that the rapist has a great sense of humor, takes great care of his sickly mother. It may be true that the man who bashed a guy’s head in for asking him to put out his cigarette, is getting great grades and headed for a PHD. 
However, the same person still chose to destroy the life of someone who did little to deserve it. The same person who is petitioning for second chances, has robbed his victims of such chances forever by destroying either their biological, or their spiritual life through death or trauma. Should such a person not have forfeited their right to plea human? Isn’t it only natural that, when you walk up to smack somebody, you don’t get to ask not to be smacked back? 

If there is more to a human being than his worst action, I suppose we’re all a little bit hard on Hitler. Poor Hitler. Rumor has it his grandmother was a bitch. It’s all her fault he killed 11 million people.

A bad life can be turned around, yes. A taken life, no. A taken life can never laugh or do good again. Take that into account when you plea for mercy for the taker of that forever lost life.

There is more to a human being than his worst action.  Research shows that people can change and suggests that a vast majority of murderers have the potential to change, if given a chance.


Research also shows that murder victims do not have the potential to change, and cannot be given a chance. And whatever the murderer’s excuse, mental illness, bad daddy, poverty, the murderer is always more at fault than the victim, for having decided to take a life that did, objectively speaking, little to force the murderer’s hand. 

Hence one must wonder – do those who take away any and all chances from their victims, deserve to be rewarded by chances of their own? 

And what if the murderer cannot better himself, or what if he returns to evil? What if he is declared insane and handled leniently? All these scenarios put at risk the lives of further potential victims. Should a line, once crossed, really be moved to the benefit of the crosser, when innocent lives have been destroyed in the process of the first crossing?

As for the tax payer burden of the death penalty… I think that once the defendant is crushed by proof, or even better, confessing, there is no need for incarceration and expensive execution ceremonies. Since they appear to be available at Walmart, I imagine a bullet to the top vertebra upon conviction would not produce any measurable weight on the tax payer.