Thursday, September 8, 2016

Invincible Ignorance

There is a sort of flip-side to conscientious objection, and that would be invincible ignorance.  This is the person who well knows "Thou Shalt Not Kill" but will kill if killing needs be.  You can spot them, for they have killed and it bothers them not in the least.  Usually they are ex-soldiers, definitely few in number, who have killed and would not know from PTS.

Just as there is no virtue in being a conscientious objector, there is no condemnation for those who are invincibly ignorant and kill.  "You know killing is wrong, correct?"  "Sure."  "Then how come you killed that man?"  "He needed killing."

The kills are always within the bounds of law, either as soldiers or civilians in a mortal situation...  coming upon a robbery, and enemy in the field, etc.

Now we live in a world in which there is much conflict and crime.  We have experimented in the last 120 years of so with attempting to limit violence to state actors, the cops.  It has not worked out very well.  And when it works as designed, then malefactors end up in jail.  Later they are released back into society, often to offend again.  These people need killing.

Now that may sound harsh from a conscientious objector, and a bit hypocritical since I won't do the killing.  But I didn't create the conscientious objector and the invincibly ignorant.  They just are.  What we have with the invincibly ignorant, if left alone, what violence is necessary and sufficient to keep society relatively safe.  That's right, I have no objection to the invincibly ignorant killing.

Well, who decides when a killing is ok?  Now it is a jury or 12, following arbitrary rules.  Better a jury of 3000 or so, all of the people affected by a killing.  To what degree will they have truck with the killer?  Will the killer find he has no friends anymore, and can't find a store that will sell him food for the killing?  Or does everyone buy him drinks for eliminating a bad actor?

What about vendettas?  It's a problem.  That is why Moses established the sanctuary cities.  If there is a killing, and someone wants revenge, the killer makes it to a sanctuary city. There is a trial at the gates, freedom within until it blows over.  The city protects the killer, it is a kind of exile.  Or of course the killer may disappear, a kind of exile.

What about a tough problem.  Under Mosaic law you needed two witnesses, no trials at night, and no executions until the next day, and the two witnesses must cast the first stones if the penalty is death.   Right there is a whole lotta cooling off time before a killing.

And with an eye for an eye, a whole lotta settlements before an execution or the loss of an eye.  it is actually a brilliant legal system.

But what about the child molester?  Often no witnesses, except what a kid says.  Kids are notorious liars, but what if they tell the truth?  Who tries the case, no two witnesses, and is the kid going to cast the first stone if execution is indicated?  Tough one.

Welcome back the invincibly ignorant, who does the killing on behalf of a kids he believes.  Back to what the community thinks about the killing, a pitch perfect sentence.

We have alternatives, and our sysem is not very good, so we ought to review these systems.

Feel Free To Email This To Three Friends.

No comments:

Post a Comment