And where is Britain now? Populist leaders democratically elected recently, check - Thatcher on one side, Blair on the other. Enabling Acts, check - Blair and Brown passed lots of mini-Enabling Acts that add up to a great deal of executive power and which, rather worryingly, the Cobbletion doesn't seem at all interested in repealing. They probably wouldn't but there's not much to stop a future fucknuts PM as it is. Still, like Sophie Scholl they can only cut off your head for it once, eh?
But it doesn't even need that to happen for death sentence mission creep to occur. All it needs is a government under some pressure to save a few quid and look tough for the tabloids.
Minister: Can we release a few more of the minor criminals early?
Advisor: Sorry Minister, that's political suicide.
Minister: Alright, what about speeding up the death penalty procedures and executing more of the worst criminals? Surely that would be popular?
Advisor: Well, we could certainly streamline the process a little more.
Minister: Only a little?
Advisor: To be honest Minister, after removing the right to a final appeal for clemency to the Queen there's not that much scope left beyond processing the paperwork more quickly.
Minister: Right, do that then. Anything else? Could we extend execution to other serious crimes?
Advisor: Such as, Minister?
Minister: Well, what have we got now? Murder, obviously.
Advisor: Yes, and terrorism, rape and sexual assault of minors.
Minister: Okay, then we just need to know what the papers are baying for blood over at the moment. You take The Daily Shriek and I'll look through the Gnash Of The Teeth.
.........
Advisor: People seem very concerned about drugs again, Minister.
Minister: Okay, shall we say any second offence of dealing Class A?
Advisor: I can draft it this afternoon, Minister.
 |
| First offence? You'll probably get off with crucifixion. |
So without rehashing the case against capital punishment any further I'd like to expand this whole argument into a simple principle of restraint on the power of the state. A golden rule on limiting executive power, if you will. Simply put it is this:
Never give your government any power that you wouldn't also be comfortable
entrusting to a genocidal dictator.
Now I'm definitely off. Enjoy your weekend.
5 comments:
"Yes, and terrorism, rape and sexual assault of minors." Add treason back into the mix, with particular emphasis on political traitors and we're cooking on gas. Your argument assumes there is no law or regulation. Whatever, if mob rule is brought about, academic niceties are quickly tossed aside and no one is safe from execution through innuendo. Like all "human rights", the right to life, when behaving horrifically should be forfeit. Lastly, your argument pre-supposes a Pol Pot or Stalin is always likely to be in charge. I think not. Well, unless such an ogre is allowed to remain at large through early release.
Treason? Why stop there? Why not sedition? How's your blog, Oldrightie? Been a little too critical of the beneficent state lately or would it be happy with what you've said? Not an issue under the 2010 Cobbleition, sure, but the Prime Ministers of 2020 or 2030... we simply have no idea what they will be like and absolutely no guarantee that they will not be so monstrous as to make Gordon Brown look like St Francis of Assisi.
"Your argument assumes there is no law or regulation."
On the contrary, my argument assumes the very same legal and regulatory environment the United Kingdom operates under today, i.e. vast and largely unchecked executive power and the ability of government to alter laws without referring to Parliament, much less citizens. No law or regulation would imply a complete absence of government and therefore nobody to carry out a death penalty and no means to pass the law enabling anyone to do so anyway.
No laws or regulations would also remove the restrictions the state has put on citizens making use of the most effective means of defending themselves. I don't have a problem with crims being killed in their line of 'work' by honest citizens using deadly force to defend themselves. Them's the breaks - tough shit. What I have a problem with is giving a state that nobody trusts the power to kill its own citizens because there is simply no guarantee that it won't turn on them too, and far from no laws and regulations that requires so many laws and regulations that it's impossible for experts, much less the layman, to keep track of them all and not inadvertently break the law. Sound familiar? Sound at all like a certain island nation off the west coast of Europe?
"Lastly, your argument pre-supposes a Pol Pot or Stalin is always likely to be in charge. I think not."
Again, not so. My argument does not pre-suppose that a monster is always in charge. In fact it begins with supposing that people like Cameramong and Cleggy are in charge, followed by a Milibanana or an Abbott or even a Balls. I'd say they're all tools but I wouldn't say they're monsters. But however harmless any of them may be there is nothing at all, not a single thing, to prevent the next one being a monster. It may be fifty wonderful years of peaceful and enlightened government, or but there's no guarantee it won't be whips, chains and firing squads next Wednesday week.
Treason? Why stop there? Why not sedition? How's your blog, Oldrightie? Been a little too critical of the beneficent state lately or would it be happy with what you've said? Not an issue under the 2010 Cobbleition, sure, but the Prime Ministers of 2020 or 2030... we simply have no idea what they will be like and absolutely no guarantee that they will not be so monstrous as to make Gordon Brown look like St Francis of Assisi.
"Your argument assumes there is no law or regulation."
On the contrary, my argument assumes the very same legal and regulatory environment the United Kingdom operates under today, i.e. vast and largely unchecked executive power and the ability of government to alter laws without referring to Parliament, much less citizens. No law or regulation would imply a complete absence of government and therefore nobody to carry out a death penalty and no means to pass the law enabling anyone to do so anyway.
No laws or regulations would also remove the restrictions the state has put on citizens making use of the most effective means of defending themselves. I don't have a problem with crims being killed in their line of 'work' by honest citizens using deadly force to defend themselves. Them's the breaks - tough shit. What I have a problem with is giving a state that nobody trusts the power to kill its own citizens because there is simply no guarantee that it won't turn on them too, and far from no laws and regulations that requires so many laws and regulations that it's impossible for experts, much less the layman, to keep track of them all and not inadvertently break the law. Sound familiar? Sound at all like a certain island nation off the west coast of Europe?
"Lastly, your argument pre-supposes a Pol Pot or Stalin is always likely to be in charge. I think not."
Again, not so. My argument does not pre-suppose that a monster is always in charge. In fact it begins with supposing that people like Cameramong and Cleggy are in charge, followed by a Milibanana or an Abbott or even a Balls. I'd say they're all tools but I wouldn't say they're monsters. But however harmless any of them may be there is nothing at all, not a single thing, to prevent the next one being a monster. It may be fifty wonderful years of peaceful and enlightened government, or but there's no guarantee it won't be whips, chains and firing squads next Wednesday week.
Treason?
I'm not sure we'd need that, with the terrorism laws we seem to have dropping out of our backsides.
"...but there's no guarantee it won't be whips, chains and firing squads next Wednesday week."
If only the government was that efficient!
Enjoy the break :)
Post a Comment