Death Penalty and the Right to Revenge

Also referred to as capital punishment, death sentence, or simply execution is generally defined as the ultimate punishment a person could receive. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica the term death penalty means: “Execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offense”. It is most likely the most disputed punishment in society. The death penalty was widely practiced throughout the world until the middle of the 20th century. But as a result of the further democratization of nations, it has more recently been viewed by society as being barbaric and, therefore, many governments have abolished it. Still, numerous views have evolved around the death penalty's position within society. The two most distinctive positions are the one in favor of it and the one strictly against it. While the death penalty is viewed by many as barbaric and inhuman, others say it is a necessary mechanism of prevention. As an alternative perspective, I am presenting the individual right to revenge as an open foundation for universal justice.

People who are in favor of the death penalty, do so because of multiple reasons. Some of these reasons can be an extreme religious point of view, strong secularism or they even might just be over-practical people who don't see why the state shouldn't interfere in the society. All these people think the state can do good for the society if the bad apples are sorted out. Some argue that by killing someone, you practically commit suicide when facing the state. One very well known argument in support of the death penalty camp is the idea that the punishment the criminal receives should be equal to the crime committed. Simply, if you kill someone, you shall be killed too. According to this camp, this mechanism has a prophylactic effect within society. Criminals might think twice about killing somebody if their possible punishment is just as severe. However considering the power this mechanism gives to the state, one should also think about the possible side effects this might have in society.

Interestingly, most people who oppose the death penalty do so because of very similar reasons to those who are in favor of it, they think that society shouldn't fall to the ethical low the criminal did, that you cannot punish an eye for an eye. Since the books of most monotheistic religions can be, and are being interpreted in many different ways, these people have simply chosen a different interpretation of the very same Holy Books. A way of arguing by using the Bible is simply by citing "Thou shall not kill", which in itself may not provide enough consistency for a real debate. Or, they might argue that today's society has alternative methods of punishment which might be used instead of the death penalty. Another argument given by the camp that opposes capital punishment is that the theoretical judicial system doesn’t work very well in reality. In fact, in many cases the accused person can’t pay his/her attorney, or the witnesses are faulty. The general thought is that those criminals might as well rot for the rest of their lives in a prison cell. One might even see death as a favor rather than a punishment, for certain criminals. But this approach doesn't give the victims (which are in most cases individuals rather than groups), and their relatives any rights; they cannot intervene at any point in this process.

In my opinion, how the masses think about a very delicate issue doesn’t depend on the private and complex thoughts of each and every individual, but rather on the overall sphere of thoughts created by their gods or superhumans. These gods or superhumans (call them whatever you want) are nothing more than the people who are in some way public figures, such as artists, politicians or even billionaires. Unfortunately, most people don’t think on their own. The masses don’t have any kind of opinions which originated within their own individual micro universe of thoughts. They are only bare and disturbingly bizarre reflections of their outer shining stars; their gods. But the actual atrocity doesn’t lie here. The true horror lies truly within these gods, purely because they don’t think either. These “special” people are the same as their lower peers. This is why I think that no sane individual should ever take any kind of collectively created thoughts into consideration while arguing about a subject which affects only the individual. In this case the two above mentioned perspectives on the issue of the death penalty have been nullified.

After leveling the playing field, I can now introduce the third perspective.
The social situation now is that the collective i.e., the state, is in every way more powerful than the individual within that collective. The individual's decision will always be minuscule compared to the decision made by the collective, no matter how and about what that decision is made. As a result, the state has the right to kill people in the name of itself and every individual within it. There is literally no legal way an individual might take the life from another individual, no matter how “right” his/her act might be. One might ask why somebody should have the right to kill in the first place. I ask, why should an assembly of disconnected nobodies have the right to make these kinds of decisions for me? If the decision is made in my name, I should be the one making it! But how can such an idea be implemented in reality?

Within many feudal societies one was allowed, in some cases even ordered, to kill another person under certain circumstances. In the case of the Albanian society, this social and philosophical matrix was, and partly still is, the Kanun. Within the decision making process, one's part as a victim was the one of the jury and the executor. But you couldn't investigate the truth about what really happened. Because of this, you had to rely on your own personal understanding of the truth. This too often led to miserable interpretations and, therefore, miserable executions. However, in today's world you actually do have in most cases the tools to investigate a crime and find out the full truth about what happened. Today's practical implementation of the law of revenge would look something like this: After an investigation a jury would decide whether or not the accused person is guilty. After the decision has been made, the law foresees some kind of punishment, in our special case, death. But the state doesn't have the right to finish the decision, nor to execute it just yet. Only a victim, chosen by the circle of victims, can agree with the decision and execute it. If he agrees, he will have to kill the criminal himself under the most direct circumstances. If he does not agree, he will have to explain his decision to the jury. In case he was not satisfied with any part of the decision making process, then the investigation and the jury will have to be reconfigured. However if he just couldn't kill him, but saw the death sentence as fitting, then the criminal would get a life sentence.

However, most people who assume they could argue on this issue are not considering the fact that they themselves haven't killed or lost anybody yet.