I believe the next logical step to cover is the view upon the justice system Dominionist Integralism entails. A very important and fundamental aspect of any society is how it punishes criminals and how it acts upon the need for justice that is always present.
First is how utterly unacceptable our current justice system is. It is laughable in its inefficiency and is riddled with corruption both in it's very foundations and throughout it's bloated bureaucracy. Most punishments within America are a joke. They are idiotic in the extreme and based upon ignorant and foolish ideals. Prisons are breeding grounds of crime and actually help further increase crime within the US. The idea of being reformed within prison is ludicrous. Anybody who would seriously claim prison helps rehabilitate criminals would most likely have their claim scorned and laughed at. Another failure is that so many precious resources are spent to hold prisoners in prison while they themselves contribute almost nothing to society. When we spend more on prisons then education in a country (as in California) it should be rather clear something is seriously wrong.
Justice should entail appropriate punishments and effective methodologies for ascertaining the innocence or guilt of a person. Human rights are based almost completely on arbitrary and ignorant moralizing. Humans do not have "rights". As if somehow we are just so deserving of rights anyways. God never bestowed upon us "rights". Humans have responsibilities. You don't avoid murder because people have the right to life but because you have the responsibility not to take another persons life without the proper justification for doing so. People do not have the right to happiness they have the responsibility to do what is right which is what actually results in happiness. You don't steal because it is your responsibility to obey the command God has given us. You do not actually have any "right" to your property.
This means that it is our responsibility of all of us to do what is right and punish those who do what is wrong. Does this preclude mercy? No, of course it does not. Does it preclude forgiveness? Once again it most certainly does not. If someone commits a wrong, even a wrong as serious as rape or murder, should we forgive them and love them anyways? Yes we should. Does that mean they should not be punished? Absolutely not. Justice is pure and human justice should reflect that as much as is possible. People often mistake mercy for simply being weak willed or naive. Tolerating sin or evil is a sin in and of itself. Forgiveness and punishment for wrongs are not mutually exclusive.
Now how then shall we punish those who do wrong? Well first before I answer I have to explain that this more closely follow my own viewpoint. While this will most likely match DI as a whole there are disagreements. The specific nature of punishment and what exactly is appropriate differs albeit not a drastic one. Therefore the descriptions I give below must not be taken as absolute in any sense.
Basically the punishment must be appropriate to the crime. DI would form justice upon three specific punishments public flogging for sexually based crimes, executions for the most heinous crimes, and slavery (forced labor) for the rest.
The worst crimes will be punished by executions in two forms public hangings and firing squad (not public). For the most part the only crime punished by execution is murder with some exceptions. If the crime is less then grievous such as the murder of only one person or murder not entailing cruelty or torture or a combination of other crimes (such as molestation or rape) then the person would be sentenced to a firing squad and executed swiftly upon conviction. For murders that do entail cruelty or torture or other factors that heighten the depravity the person will be sentenced to a public hanging. The person will have their crimes announced to the world and hung in the view of the public so as to send a message that such evil is not ever tolerated and to impress upon those who see the seriousness of the act.
Public flogging is done in the case of sexual crimes for a few reasons. One is that due to the detestable nature of the crime nothing less painful and humiliating would suffice. They also shall have their crimes announced to the world and punished in the view of society. Rape or molestation are very serious crimes but I would not have them be capital crimes because I believe that even with such a wicked and depraved act they can redeem themselves. Their victims can also heal from the wounds inflicted upon themselves unlike in the case of murder. It is both merciful and adequately harsh. The very act of seeing something so horrific would be enough to discourage many from doing such things and those that do and are flogged are very unlikely to repeat their crimes in the future. Repeat offenses for those who do in fact not repent will be given harsher and longer floggings to the point that it is unlikely they would even survive such a punishment. The other benefit to such a punishment is that it does not waste resources and the criminal has the ability to live out the rest of his or her life and hopefully to change their ways and make restitution for the pain they have caused. I do not understand how locking a person up for 20 or 30 years or even for life is somehow more compassionate and more likely to respect "human rights".
The last punishment that would be dealt is slavery. Obviously misunderstandings need to be cleared first to prevent confusion. First of all racism and slavery are not synonymous. Slavery does not mean racially based servitude. Those who would serve as slaves are not simply indigenous peoples who had the misfortune of being captured. They are criminals who have committed wrongs against the state or their fellow man and must now make restitution for their acts. The sentence of forced labor would also never exceed a certain amount I believe 5 years is the most that one should ever have to serve as a slave. Why slavery? Is that not cruel or barbaric? I ask why not? Why should we not make those who would destroy and steal pay back the damages they caused? Should they not pay society back for their behavior?
With this society fills a role for labor that is both necessary but often not fit for loyal and law abiding citizens. It is a punishment that requires people to understand all of their actions have consequences and that to do wrong is to be responsible for fixing that wrong.
With punishments like these people are dealt with appropriately and in a both merciful yet just manner. Some would call some of this cruel but they are the ones who would let criminals get away with their deeds. Theirs is not mercy or civilized behavior it is ignorance and stupidity. It is cowardice disguised as civilization and hidden under the cloak of non-existent human rights.
Even despite this another issue remains. How shall we decide who is guilty or innocent? Obviously to flog or execute an innocent man is something that should be avoided at almost any cost. It is never acceptable to rush to judgment just to satisfy the ignorant and impatient public as happens in society today. Nor should we delay so long people die of natural causes before they are even executed. Both of these extremes are to be avoided.
First is to require that only those who possess the competence and training required to ever have the authority to convict another person. Only those who are trained in forensics or other relevant fields such as psychology or certain variable fields that are dependent on the crime (such as computer expertise or medical expertise or whatnot). The jury systems as used today will be abolished completely. It is foolish in the extreme to let 12 random sometimes incompetent or completely unqualified individuals pass judgment. The very idea of a defense attorney and prosecutor is closer to a game. The objective is never to win or to gain profit as it usually is nowadays. The objective is to determine the truth of the matter.
Convictions will be determined by an analysis of the crime and by the verdict of a team of analysts whose job it is to determine what happened and verify claims made. As much reliability will be put into place as possible with corruption being dealt with in an entirely harsh manner. Corruption or deception in this process by those in the justice system will probably be one of the few crimes that merit the death penalty besides murder. If a person is innocently convicted based upon the corruption of those who made the conviction they can expect a punishment far worse then the punishment of the crime in question.
With this DI contains a system of Justice that is entirely intolerant of wrongdoing but as merciful as possible. DI rejects the idea that forgiveness entails simply letting people get away with things and also rejects the opposite idea that some things cannot be forgiven. Only the most dangerous and harmful crimes are dealt with by execution (which are sadly all too common) but DI does not shirk from our duty to impose retribution for evil. Neither do we deny the ability of anybody to repent of their sins and make amends for their wrongs.
No comments:
Post a Comment