When watching a documentary on Discovery, I learnt that the punishments are incredibly harsh in a certain top-security prison in the U.S.. A mere unarmed fight there gave a the one who started the fight over a hundred days in solitary confinement, in addition to his original jail term. Now we are not talking about the solitary confinement you would find in any jail. In this top-security prison, solitary cells contains a toilet bowl without seat nor cover, a mirror screwed into the wall tightly, a metal sink with no plug and a bed. The window is a pane of glass less than 2m tall, and about 5 inches wide. Basically you cannot see the person delivering food to you when you're inside, and only once a month do you see an living creature beside yourself. And that's only when you are cuffed and escorted by no less than 2 huge wardens for a haircut. Yes, in there, all you can see is yourself, and yourself in the mirror. There is not even a damned cockroach for you to see. When that person tried to appeal for a shorter sentence by claiming to see bugs in the room all the time from the corner of his eyes, the appeal was rejected by the head warden. Now that is the right way to do things. To have punishments so brutal that people would fear the sentence before they decide to commit crimes. Not to make those guys pay for what they have done. That should never be the intention of the punishments. I did explain why in a certain previous article, so I will not digress anymore.
Like, for example, refusing to return to Singapore for NS. The punishment should not be just 10 months of jail and the lousy fine. Goodness knows most Singaporeans who dare to avoid from NS also usually have barely enough money for such situations. But to make it so brutal that no one would consider such an option, it should be life imprisonment for such people. You were expecting me to say," Exile"? ROFL! That would be nice. But back to the topic, life imprisonment would also be suitable for such people because they truly do not understand the importance of a militia-like army for a country like ours. They do not understand that even if they have the ability to make US$800b by the age of 30, it would be pointless if their country is no longer a country on its own. Either that or they do not care about their country at all. Either way such people are dangerous to the nation and letting them out would only lead to their ideas spreading to other people. Unless you have read my previous articles, you would find the above possibility of our country losing its sovereignty absurd. Know that peace is not something that comes falling from the sky.
Peace comes from the fact that more people bother to enforce peace than people who want the chaos that lead to change. Countries and borders are still fluid matters. East Timor was considered part of Indonesia until 1999. And even before this, it had really been an independent state since Nov 28, 1975, though it was occupied by Indonesia 9 days later, until 1999. And that was a mere 8 years ago. Just 600 years ago, Western Europe was made up of an incredible number of nations, compared to what it is today. If you are able to take a look at an accurate map of what it was like back then, it would have shocked you. And China is another example. You see, borders are always fluid. Countries come and go. And they always go when the people and/or the rulers are weak. Following every change, is Chaos.
How I digress!
Forgiveness cannot be asked. Forgiveness cannot be demanded. Like respect, forgiveness must be earned. To pray for forgiveness is to demand something unreasonably from whoever you pray to. But many do not understand. They believe they need forgiveness in many things that no one should forgive them for. Or they believe they are wrong when they are most definitely not. So this is where religion comes in. Makes life easier for those who do not wish to dwell on the whole meaning of what they are doing. Religion is a shortcut. But I cannot say it is a bad one. Some people do need it when they find difficulty in walking alone.
for·give [fer-giv]
–verb (used with object)
| 1. | to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve. |
| 2. | to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.). |
| 3. | to grant pardon to (a person). |
| 4. | to cease to feel resentment against: to forgive one's enemies. |
| 5. | to cancel an indebtedness or liability of: to forgive the interest owed on a loan. |
| 6. | to pardon an offense or an offender. |
Basically to forgive is to treat it as if the offending act never happened. Why else would a person forgive? To forgive is to grant pardon for, to absolve, to cease to feel resentment and to cancel an indebtedness of liability. Is that not to "treat it as if the offending act never happened"? Well you would think that there is difference of the memory being there in the case of forgiveness. But that would be wrong on your part. I said "to treat it as if the act never happened", not to forget the whole matter. Heinous crimes have been forgiven, but never forgotten. When a person forgives another, the forgiving person must not have any dislike or bias against the forgiven person which is based on the forgiven offending act.
And to forgive someone who killed an innocent person for no good reason is illogical. A bad reason like a drug deal gone awry is no reason to kill anyone. Such person needs to be removed from the society in such a way that there is no possibility of parole or escape. Killers like this have proven to be unable to control themselves in their daily lives. Therefore they are very dangerous people. Death is most suitable for such murderers and it is much cheaper for the country than life imprisonment. If we were to replace the death sentence with life imprisonment, us, taxpayers, would be paying for their lives. Where is the logic in that? But one argument against death is that sometimes the wrong person is arrested and charged. Nothing would be enough to pay for such, and the whole country would be the murderer. Now the question that must be asked is this: are the prisons' escape rates low enough to gamble with our lives so that the few innocent people won't be killed by the state? Either way you run the risk of getting killed. An infinitesimally small possibility of both, but they exist nonetheless. If I were to choose between the 2, I'd choose being killed by the state. At least they treat you well just before you die.
Another point is that murderers can be counselled, or treated, so that they will not murder anymore. Now I do not know the murder rates of countries with capital punishment and those that do not, but what I expect is that countries with capital punishment should tend to have the lower numbers when they have their murder rates divided by the total population of the country. And to treat/counsel serial killers? No matter. All these counselling and treating should have started when they were young. Right, some people have lousy parents who do not teach their kids not to murder when they grow up. Why not? This I blame the parents, and the people of the country in general. Everyone has to have part of the blame for every murder that happens. This may sound absurd but everything everyone does plays a part in all events. Those parents may have been brought up in the same way as their kids, and no one taught them the right way. No one bothered. See the link? Or the parents were too busy to teach them, too busy working for a living. "Busy" is always an excuse, but never a reason. Lazy is the right word. Convincing themselves they were busy when they were really placing the priority of such important lessons below the priority of sleep, is the real reason. Screaming and shouting they were really too busy is pointless, because the truth is the truth and nothing but the truth. Convincing themselves otherwise is plainly self-denial.
The actual truth is never important. The perceived truth is all that matters. This is the cause of all Chaos.
No comments:
Post a Comment