Crime without punishment is but the ruin of Man
The tragic story of the Utoeya massacre goes on to sicken the world. Picture of the Norwegian murderer parading at his trial with a mixture of bravado and provocation have been beamed around the world. Now recognised as mentally sound, he knows perfectly well that he risks at most to be condemned to a little over twenty years in jail. And the trial gives him a deeply shocking global exposure. Justice appears toothless and our societies are under the threat of other such crimes. The families and friends must be devastated at the sight of this murderer enjoying himself under the eye of the global television cameras.
On April 18th, 2012, Mr Breivik was even pushing provocation as far as to ask to be either acquitted or sentenced to death – in a country where the death penalty has long been banned. None of these too sentences would be appropriate. No sentence would be appropriate for one single murder let alone for the evil of 77 murders.
Like Raskolnikov in Crime And Punishment, Mr Breivik is trying to convince others as well as himself that it is okay to kill people if it is for a high and noble ideal, thereby suggesting to amend the criminal law for him.
Why not after all? This is a rather exceptional case. I therefore respectfully suggest to the Norwegian Parliament to urgently amend the law and to create a new penalty allowing murderers to slowly realize what they have done: let Mr Breivik be condemned to a service work in favour of the community, consisting in digging every day by hand some of the graves needed by the Oslo cemeteries, and to reach every week the total of 77 graves. The name of a victim would be reminded to him for every grave. In that way he could reflect every day about the loss of a dear one; every week he could regret to have relentlessly executed some many young victims. With respect I submit to the Norwegian Parliament to establish that such penalty destined to deter mass murders be without limitation of time, thus that it be continued beyond his prison time, the only limit being the victims’ next of kin’s forgiveness. Either the families would forgive spontaneously or the killer could ask for forgiveness. He would however continue his work in proportion of the pardons not granted.
This treatment may seem inhuman. It is in no way meant to be degrading or sadistic. It is meant to bring about a change of paradigm in the killer’s mind. At the start of this work, Mr Breivik would probably still be pretty much the same as he is today, swaggering and self-satisfied; but after a few years he might be caught up by his conscience. He might reach a better understanding of good and evil. He might understand that violence can only destroy and not create. He might start to fathom the value of human life.
Of course Mr Breivik is an extreme case, but the idea could be applied to all murderers before too many candidates to stardom takes up arms. Will there be no other cases? The Toulouse murders should be a cause for alarm. A society that is durably unable to make clear what it approves of and what it disapproves is in danger of death. It is not clear that our society disapproves of violence: by answering all situations by coercion, by sending troops around the world to settle issues, by allowing video games et televisions to showcase hundreds of violent deaths without ever showing their consequences, our societies are not disavowing violence. Without a clear message about violence, including a clear warning that those who kill people would have to pay a very heavy price, unable to sanction appropriately crimes against humanity, our societies will lose their humanity.
Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul, said Rabelais. Crime without punishment is but the ruin of Man suggested Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Let’s hear him.
The tragic story of the Utoeya massacre goes on to sicken the world. Picture of the Norwegian murderer parading at his trial with a mixture of bravado and provocation have been beamed around the world. Now recognised as mentally sound, he knows perfectly well that he risks at most to be condemned to a little over twenty years in jail. And the trial gives him a deeply shocking global exposure. Justice appears toothless and our societies are under the threat of other such crimes. The families and friends must be devastated at the sight of this murderer enjoying himself under the eye of the global television cameras.
On April 18th, 2012, Mr Breivik was even pushing provocation as far as to ask to be either acquitted or sentenced to death – in a country where the death penalty has long been banned. None of these too sentences would be appropriate. No sentence would be appropriate for one single murder let alone for the evil of 77 murders.
Like Raskolnikov in Crime And Punishment, Mr Breivik is trying to convince others as well as himself that it is okay to kill people if it is for a high and noble ideal, thereby suggesting to amend the criminal law for him.
Why not after all? This is a rather exceptional case. I therefore respectfully suggest to the Norwegian Parliament to urgently amend the law and to create a new penalty allowing murderers to slowly realize what they have done: let Mr Breivik be condemned to a service work in favour of the community, consisting in digging every day by hand some of the graves needed by the Oslo cemeteries, and to reach every week the total of 77 graves. The name of a victim would be reminded to him for every grave. In that way he could reflect every day about the loss of a dear one; every week he could regret to have relentlessly executed some many young victims. With respect I submit to the Norwegian Parliament to establish that such penalty destined to deter mass murders be without limitation of time, thus that it be continued beyond his prison time, the only limit being the victims’ next of kin’s forgiveness. Either the families would forgive spontaneously or the killer could ask for forgiveness. He would however continue his work in proportion of the pardons not granted.
This treatment may seem inhuman. It is in no way meant to be degrading or sadistic. It is meant to bring about a change of paradigm in the killer’s mind. At the start of this work, Mr Breivik would probably still be pretty much the same as he is today, swaggering and self-satisfied; but after a few years he might be caught up by his conscience. He might reach a better understanding of good and evil. He might understand that violence can only destroy and not create. He might start to fathom the value of human life.
Of course Mr Breivik is an extreme case, but the idea could be applied to all murderers before too many candidates to stardom takes up arms. Will there be no other cases? The Toulouse murders should be a cause for alarm. A society that is durably unable to make clear what it approves of and what it disapproves is in danger of death. It is not clear that our society disapproves of violence: by answering all situations by coercion, by sending troops around the world to settle issues, by allowing video games et televisions to showcase hundreds of violent deaths without ever showing their consequences, our societies are not disavowing violence. Without a clear message about violence, including a clear warning that those who kill people would have to pay a very heavy price, unable to sanction appropriately crimes against humanity, our societies will lose their humanity.
Science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul, said Rabelais. Crime without punishment is but the ruin of Man suggested Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Let’s hear him.
posted by Antoine Jaulmes at 2:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home