Dear Editor,
Parliament made a very strange decision recently. It decided to outlaw flogging, on the grounds that it is inhumane and is a relic of slavery. However, in coming to this decision, it forgot another inhumane law that can also be regarded as a relic of slavery - hanging.
According to our lawmakers, flogging had to go, as it was wrong in all aspects. But if flogging is so wrong, why is hanging still right?
If my memory servers me right, I am sure that slaves were once hanged for falling out of line. I would have also thought that hanging would have been a worse form of punishment than flogging, seeing that while the intent of flogging is to preserve life, that for hanging was to end it. What more "inhumane" treatment is there than chocking one to death at the end of a rope?
I don't usually consider the morality of issues like these. If flogging served a beneficial purpose, then I would have no problem with preserving those laws in respect of it. However, what beneficial purpose does hanging serve?
All of the studies that have been done around the world have shown that the death penalty does not serve as any form of deterrent. That's why many countries are moving away from it. While hanging may have some political value, the time has long passed for the practice to be halted.
Plus, there are several downsides to hanging. Unlike flogging, where a person flogged wrongly can be compensated, there is no compensation for a person once he has been hanged wrongly. How can the dead be compensated if it turns out that his execution was done in error?
I have always said that hanging someone will not deny that person something that he or the rest of us will not get anyway - death. Therefore, instead of hanging, why not make the most of the condemned?
We could use their "free" labour for many construction projects. Why not create labour camps out of these convicts? Also, there are many people who need organ transplants. Why not use these convicts as reliable sources of organs?
The good thing about making the most of these condemned persons instead of hanging them, is obvious. We could get more work done for less and their organs could actually be used to save lives. Also, and this is perhaps the best part - if it turns out that they were innocent, restitution can still be made to them.
Let us really be truthful when we talk about the need to enhance our human rights. If flogging is bad, hanging is much worse. Let's ban hanging too.
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
We should ban hanging too
-->
Parliament made a very strange decision recently. It decided to outlaw flogging, on the grounds that it is inhumane and is a relic of slavery. However, in coming to this decision, it forgot another inhumane law that can also be regarded as a relic of slavery - hanging.
According to our lawmakers, flogging had to go, as it was wrong in all aspects. But if flogging is so wrong, why is hanging still right?
If my memory servers me right, I am sure that slaves were once hanged for falling out of line. I would have also thought that hanging would have been a worse form of punishment than flogging, seeing that while the intent of flogging is to preserve life, that for hanging was to end it. What more "inhumane" treatment is there than chocking one to death at the end of a rope?
I don't usually consider the morality of issues like these. If flogging served a beneficial purpose, then I would have no problem with preserving those laws in respect of it. However, what beneficial purpose does hanging serve?
All of the studies that have been done around the world have shown that the death penalty does not serve as any form of deterrent. That's why many countries are moving away from it. While hanging may have some political value, the time has long passed for the practice to be halted.
Plus, there are several downsides to hanging. Unlike flogging, where a person flogged wrongly can be compensated, there is no compensation for a person once he has been hanged wrongly. How can the dead be compensated if it turns out that his execution was done in error?
I have always said that hanging someone will not deny that person something that he or the rest of us will not get anyway - death. Therefore, instead of hanging, why not make the most of the condemned?
We could use their "free" labour for many construction projects. Why not create labour camps out of these convicts? Also, there are many people who need organ transplants. Why not use these convicts as reliable sources of organs?
The good thing about making the most of these condemned persons instead of hanging them, is obvious. We could get more work done for less and their organs could actually be used to save lives. Also, and this is perhaps the best part - if it turns out that they were innocent, restitution can still be made to them.
Let us really be truthful when we talk about the need to enhance our human rights. If flogging is bad, hanging is much worse. Let's ban hanging too.
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
We should ban hanging too
-->