Utopia
v
Dystopia

Capital punishment: Hark v Hark
Harold Hark
30 August 2002

In a Utopian world, we would not have pack rapists or pack dissemblers. The planet would be shared by a humanity conscious of its self and of others and their differences. Governments would merely be administrative, looking after health, education, transportation, welfare, etc. Business would be conducted with utmost ethical integrity. The mind would flourish, aided by hearts full of compassion.

In the world of yesterday, today and tomorrow, however, this is a pipe dream. A pipe chock full of high grade Manali or Mazar-i-Sharif hashish, I wish I could add.

The recent sentencing of the Sydney pack rapists, especially that of the leader's 55 years with 40 before parole, has reignited the battle between vengeance and rehabilitation.

It's a tough one. I suspect most of us are of two minds. I know I am, and the battle never ends.

It goes something like this: In the eye-for-an-eye corner, wearing flaming red trunks is Horrible Horck, frothing at the mouth. In the ever evolving corner, wearing Robin's Egg Blue trunks, is Saint Lark-upon-a-branch, twittering beatifically.

Horrible Horck, believing rehabilitation for sex criminals and politicians who abuse the fragile development of civilised behaviour is impossible, would like to see the following scenarios set in place:

Capital punishment to be administered solely for violent crimes against innocence.

This would include all pre-meditated, forced, non-consensual sexual acts where the victim is either murdered or rendered traumatised for life.

Once the perpetrator is found guilty, he or she is to be removed from the public arena entirely, disappeared in fact, before execution. It is important that the public take no further part once the sentence is handed down. It will be enough that they know the method of execution without pandering to the baseness such events cause.

The execution would be administered without witnesses (thus avoiding a sadomasochistic executioner) by placing the guilty party in the centre of a vast, enclosed nature area (using the same methods of enclosure employed by Heil Ruddock in his concentration camps, as well as those employed by his role models in Hitler's Third Reich), where he or she will spend his or her remaining days attempting to escape all manner of fearful carnivores deprived of food for several days before the drop. The case will be considered closed from the moment of entry, as no one will be allowed into the reserve to confirm the death.

In the case of broader crimes against humanity, such as should be administered to the likes of Heil Ruddock and John Howard, the sentence should be as follows:

To be enclosed in perpetuity in a small room with the evidence of their deeds. They will be administered 3000 micrograms of LSD every three days and made to watch videos of the suffering they have caused, interspersed with videos of themselves verbalising their treacheries. They will also be forced, over and over, to watch and listen to any films or music they have, during the course of their lives, come to both love and hate. With the following stipulations: While watching the films they love, they will be forced to listen to the music they hate. Conversely, while watching the films they hate, they will be forced to listen to the music they love. Thus a film by Doris Day or "The sound of Music" would be accompanied by the charming Eminem, while a song by Doris Day would be accompanied by a film repugnant to the neo-liberal faux-Christianity they adhere to: the films of Ken Loach, for example. Slasher films would be prohibited as they might prove sexually exciting. They will eventually be provided with the means of suicide, to be administered by Phillip Nietschke, but only after an assessed passage of time, several years perhaps.

There will be no reprieve in these cases.

Saint Lark-on-a-branch, by contrast, is appalled by such vengeful excess. He is stuck believing in the law of karma, or having to deal with the fruit, good or bad, of one's actions in this life and, especially, the next. He understands that Horrible Horck wants the karma to be instant, rather than in some unknowable future life, but he also understands that the desire for such retribution will accrue more karma for himself. He would like to be able to say in his next life: "Look ma, no karma!" Fat chance.

Lark realises that life on earth is a penance rather than a gift. If it was otherwise, the above Utopia would hold true and seemingly innocent people would not endure such pain while transgressors so often get away with the lot. He realises that the one word that sums up life on earth is bittersweet. That while observing compassion for all sentient beings, it is up to the individual to clean up his or her own act. Enlightenment, in the end, is a solitary affair.

And what of Hark? As long as he is torn between the two, neither will emerge. Just another human hanging out until death does him part.

See also:
Terry Lane: We're not safe by a long stretch
Stephen Romei: Community standards, or lynch-mob mentality?

Top