The Angry Exile: Hanging together

The Hangman

Into our town the Hangman came,
Smelling of gold and blood and flame.
And he paced our bricks with a diffident air,
And built his frame in the courthouse square.
The scaffold stood by the courthouse side,
Only as wide as the door was wide;
A frame as tall, or little more,
Than the capping sill of the courthouse door.
And we wondered, whenever we had the time,
Who the criminal, what the crime
That the Hangman judged with the yellow twist
of knotted hemp in his busy fist.
And innocent though we were, with dread,
We passed those eyes of buckshot lead --
Till one cried: "Hangman, who is he
For whom you raised the gallows-tree?"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
And he gave us a riddle instead of reply:
"He who serves me best," said he,
"Shall earn the rope of the gallows-tree."
And he stepped down, and laid his hand
On a man who came from another land.
And we breathed again, for another's grief
At the Hangman's hand was our relief
And the gallows-frame on the courthouse lawn
By tomorrow's sun would be struck and gone.
So we gave him way, and no one spoke,
Out of respect for his Hangman's cloak.
The next day's sun looked mildly down
On roof and street in our quiet town,
And stark and black in the morning air
Was the gallows-tree in the courthouse square.
And the Hangman stood at his usual stand
With the yellow hemp in his busy hand;
With his buckshot eye and his jaw like a pike
And his air so knowing and business-like.
And we cried, "Hangman, have you not done
Yesterday, with the foreign one?"
Then we fell silent, and stood amazed,
"Oh, not for him was the gallows raised."
He laughed a laugh as he looked at us:
"Did you think I'd gone to all this fuss
To hang one man? That's a thing I do
To stretch a rope when the rope is new."
Then one cried "Murder!" and one cried "Shame!"
And into our midst the Hangman came
To that man's place. "Do you hold," said he,
"with him that was meant for the gallows-tree?"
And he laid his hand on that one's arm.
And we shrank back in quick alarm!
And we gave him way, and no one spoke
Out of fear of his Hangman's cloak.
That night we saw with dread surprise
The Hangman's scaffold had grown in size.
Fed by the blood beneath the chute,
The gallows-tree had taken root;
Now as wide, or a little more,
Than the steps that led to the courthouse door,
As tall as the writing, or nearly as tall,
Halfway up on the courthouse wall.
The third he took -- we had all heard tell --
Was a usurer, and an infidel.
"What," said the Hangman "have you to do
With the gallows-bound, and he a Jew?"
And we cried out, "Is this one he
Who has served you well and faithfully?"
The Hangman smiled: "It's a clever scheme
to try the strength of the gallows-beam."
The fourth man's dark, accusing song
Had scratched our comfort hard and long;
"And what concern," he gave us back.
"Have you for the doomed -- the doomed and Black?"
The fifth. The sixth. And we cried again,
"Hangman, Hangman, is this the man?"
"It's a trick," he said. "that we hangmen know
For easing the trap when the trap springs slow."
And so we ceased, and asked no more,
As the Hangman tallied his bloody score.
And sun by sun, and night by night,
The gallows grew to monstrous height.
The wings of the scaffold opened wide
Till they covered the square from side to side;
And the monster cross-beam, looking down,
Cast its shadow across the town.
Then through the town the Hangman came,
Through the empty streets, and called my name --
And I looked at the gallows soaring tall,
And thought, "There is no one left at all
For hanging, and so he calls to me
To help pull down the gallows-tree."
So I went out with right good hope
To the Hangman's tree and the Hangman's rope.
He smiled at me as I came down
To the courthouse square through the silent town.
And supple and stretched in his busy hand
Was the yellow twist of the hempen strand.
And he whistled his tune as he tried the trap,
And it sprang down with a ready snap --
And then with a smile of awful command
He laid his hand upon my hand.
"You tricked me. Hangman!," I shouted then,
"That your scaffold was built for other men...
And I no henchman of yours," I cried,
"You lied to me, Hangman. Foully lied!"
Then a twinkle grew in the buckshot eye,
"Lied to you? Tricked you?" he said. "Not I.
For I answered straight and I told you true --
The scaffold was raised for none but you.
For who has served me more faithfully
Then you with your coward's hope?" said he,
"And where are the others who might have stood
Side by your side in the common good?"
"Dead," I whispered. And amiably
"Murdered," the Hangman corrected me:
"First the foreigner, then the Jew...
I did no more than you let me do."
Beneath the beam that blocked the sky
None had stood so alone as I.
The Hangman noosed me, and no voice there
Cried "Stop!" for me in the empty square.

Maurice Ogden

Friday, 5 August 2011

Hanging together

Despite the last post saying there'd be no blogging 'til after the weekend I'm going to make the time for a very brief blog on the topic of capital punishment, currently the subject of a reinstatement campaign by The Sun and Guido Fawkes. As usual it's a splitter, and in the blogosphere as well as day to day life. Some bloggers for whom I have a lot of respect - the Ambush Predator, Sue and Anna Raccoon, to name just three - are in favour of capital punishment while others who are equally estimable - such as Captain Ranty, Sadbutmadlad c/o The Raccoon's Arms virtual pub and ironically The Grim Reaper - are opposed to it. As I've written before (here and here, for instance) I'm very much in the opposed camp, and trying to put it beyond reach is one of the very few things that I think politicians have somehow managed to get right. Quite possibly by accident or for other motives but whether it's design or serendipity I'm not the slightest bit sorry about it.

Since this is supposed to be brief, at least by my normal prolix standard, I'm not going to go deeply into the reason for my opposition, which can be found on those links anyway, but I'll summarise it with a copy of a comment I left at Captain Ranty's an hour or so ago.

I say this time and time and time again: it simply astounds me that so many people who are so critical of the state - an entity that so many of us agree is corrupt, incapable of finding its arse with both hands and prone to abusing its authority if not acting ultra vires - are willing to give it back the power to kill its citizens. Fuck the criminal scum, a noose around the neck of the most evil man in the land is a potential noose around the neck of all.

Oh, you might be safe with a Cameramong or Millivanilli government but which of you death penalty supporters knows what kind of toad-licking swivel-eyed fucknuts you'll have for PM in 10, 15, 20+ years? For all we know right now the future could hold a Chancellor Sutcliffe or a British Mugabe, and why the hell would we want to make the bastard's job any easier? And I can't think of any democracy that hasn't elected a bastard at some stage and we all know that some have elected utter batsards, so there's really no reason to think it can't happen. In fact I'd bet that if you wait long enough it's almost inevitable.

If you love liberty the answer is straightforward: you must never, ever entrust the state with any power that you would not also be happy giving to a homicidal dictator.

It can be put even more succinctly than that (though clearly not by me). Old Slaughter, who doesn't even describe him as a libertarian but a "small government conservative", comments at Anna Racoon's blog:

... the death penalty is the ultimate symbol of the state's presumption of authority over our lives. I would find it incongruent with libertarianism to advocate such a policy.

Indeed, and I did leave a comment telling Old Slaughter him that I was going to nick that. Please don't hang me for it.

Comments (6)

Logging you in...

Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout

Logged in as

+3 Vote up Vote down

Pat Nurse · 712 weeks ago

I agree AE. Murder is wrong and that doesn't make state murder right. The problem is that when the death penalty was abolished, citizens were still assured of the revenge and justice factor by the replacement of whole life prison sentences instead of a noose but what has since happened is that a murderer can now go free after 10 years. Making the worst criminals comfortable in jail, while ensuring that there is no real consequences for killing someone, means that the appetite for state murder has returned.

1 reply · active 712 weeks ago

+3 Vote up Vote down

Angry_Exile 90p · 712 weeks ago

Pat: nail, head, whack. Yes, undeniably there is a problem with inadequate sentencing. I can understand the argument among the legal profession that judges take into account the specifics of each case and blahblahblah, and I have a certain amount of qualified support for it. But it's a sad reality that in the UK judicial system there is a very high rate of repeat offending among a certain type of criminal. Not necessarily for a certain type of crime - most murderers do not kill again and not being a danger to the public don't even need to be locked up for life. The problem is - and this may be a feature of modern one-size-doesn't-fit-anyone government policies - that there's been a tendency to treat all murderers as the same and lump the dangerous ones in with the ones you can safely let out after a sentence long enough to serve as a suitable punishment. Hence a gang member who carefully plans a murder of a rival or who kills casually as a warning to others gets the same or nearly the same treatment as someone who murdered their spouse in a moment of madness and has been torturing themselves over it ever since. One is very unlikely to be a danger, one isn't, but when they both get let out early it's a problem. That needs to be fixed, no argument from me there, though the solutions are probably complicated and require either many more prison places, a different type of prison system which actually delivers lower reoffending rates rather than a lot of noise about them, or removing an awful lot of currently imprisonable offences to free up room for the bastards who really need to be kept locked up more or less permanently. A discussion of that is a whole post in itself so for now I'll just stick with the point that a state that can't be trusted not to abuse its powers and go back on its word over something like the smoking ban probably shouldn't be trusted with the death penalty.

+2 Vote up Vote down

Captain Ranty · 712 weeks ago

AE,

I dispute that OS was more succinct.

The only line that you needed to write was this one:

"If you love liberty the answer is straightforward: you must never, ever entrust the state with any power that you would not also be happy giving to a homicidal dictator."

It really clinches the argument.

If only I were bright enough to have come up with it....

Thanks for the link too.

CR.
My recent post No Noose Is Good Noose

1 reply · active 712 weeks ago

+1 Vote up Vote down

Angry_Exile 90p · 712 weeks ago

It's a close variant of something I said at the end of my second death penalty blog last September, and I liked it so much I allowed the small ego trip of quoting myself and putting it in my own sidebar :) . I was trying to get away from the usual miscarriage of justice, barbarity, makes-us-all-killers-so-not-in-my-name arguments because for me they're secondary to my distrust of the entity which would wield the power. A state that passes a law like RIPA and then promptly abuses it - and it's not as if RIPA is the only example - should simply not be trusted with the death penalty, and democracy being what it is you can never be sure that a hypothetical trustworthy government would not one day be replaced by an untrustworthy one. In the process of blogging that popped into my head as a kind of rule of thumb for limiting the power of the state - if you wouldn't want a Stalin to do something then you shouldn't let a Ghandi do it either, because given enough time and a democracy it's almost inevitable that a Stalin will one day be in charge. That's the practical side of it - I think Old Slaughter's point about the death penalty being the state's ultimate authority over, and arguably even ownership of, our lives is the philosophical side.

+1 Vote up Vote down

thylacosmilus 62p · 712 weeks ago

All the debate and kerfuffle aside, I can't see what Guido hopes to achieve, other than - if they aren't debating this pointless issue - keeping the politicians from screwing up anything else.

After all, it doesn't matter what our MPs discuss - we simply can't do this, while the EU makes our laws for us.

Post a new comment

Comment as a Guest, or login:

Tweet this comment

Connected as (Logout)

Email (optional)

Not displayed publicly.

Submit Comment

Subscribe to

Add insightful or amusing remarks for me to think on and respond to. Or add annoying comment spam for me to waste time deleting, in which case may your genitals turn square and fester at the corners.

Unnecessary ranting and gratuitous profanity is strictly encouraged.

NB - due to some annoying pricks comment spamming lately all comments with three or more any links go into a moderation queue. If it's not spam I will publish all comments even tenuously related to whatever I was rambling about in the post. Otherwise please refer to the comments policy.

Comments by IntenseDebate

The Angry Exile

Commenting.

Content Warning

The longer musings of an Angry Exile

Good Stuff From Other Bloggers

Blog Archive

Ranting and spitting venom

Take The Party Political "Pepsi Challenge"

As if you give a stuff...

Fragile earth

Quotes

Gallery

The Hangman

Angry Places

Friday, 5 August 2011

Hanging together

Forgot password?

Comments (6)

Post a new comment

Search This Blog

Repeal the smoking ban

Orphans of Liberty

Internet Censorship

De-Niemöllerisation

The Soft Totalitarian State

Repeal Bill Links

People who read upside down

Regular reads

Trough Watch

Other interesting sites

Mainstream Media

Not so mainstream

Help Me

Sponsoring the final solution