It's interesting that a number of serious philosophers have been pro-CP. Kant-- who abhorred the idea of using anybody in the criminal justice system as an "example" for others (he held that people were ends, not means)-- nevertheless supported CP because for him it recognised the rationality of the murderer. He who decides to take life makes the choice to give up his own right to it. Hegel thought that the death penalty worked as a kind of balancing act.
CP happens in states which are already profoundly violent-- the U.S., Australia and South Africa are its leading practitioners. It is more revealing to note that these countries also have extremes of wealth and poverty, along with ready access to weapons, and substantial minority populations who are very marginalised. Add it all together and you get sub-groups for whom violence is sometimes a necessity or a "seemingly logical" option, groups who lack access to things like social status, political participation in a meaningful way and often basic necessities like decent schools and good work. In highly stratified societies, domniant groups' fear of minorities encourages punitive measures for those who appear to disrupt the social order. It is no accident that in the U.S., not only the rate of incarceration but the rate of convuiction for minorities is much higher than for whites. This has partly to do with the life of poverty, and much to do with what happens when poor people get crappy lawyers. As Chuck D said, "When a white man kills a black man, that's self defense. When a black man kills a white, that's murder one. WHen a black kills another black, it's just another *beep* dead." I condemn killing; I also think CP is wrong, but sociological factors clearly play a role in who does crime, and who is convicted.
Kieslowski's film works in its subtlety of judgment. The killer is clearly a nasty piece of work; the cab driver unpleasant; and the lawyer naive. Nonethless, the sheer fact of the final action stuns us. From the opening sequence-- where we see first a dead rat, and then a cat-- and then dogs which chase cats, the film extends this chain of prey to humans (the cab driver scares, or feeds (ie is capricious toward) dogs), then to other humans (Jacek kills Waldemar), then to the State (it kills Jacek). Add to this the pestilential colours of the film, and the message is simple-- the act of killing binds us all into a chain of cruelty, and is the product of a society as sick as its criminals. Plato once wrote that justice should improve, not destroy....
reply
share
davidgoesboating
17 years ago
I had heard that this movie had actually led to the end of the application of the death penalty in Poland, so I was expecting a film that would seriously challenge my own views on the subject. The fact that it was directed by the very intelligent director Kieslowski increased my interest.
However, I can't say that I was entirely convinced. Kieslowski, to his credit, showed everything how it is. The killing of the taxi driver is shown in its full brutality, as is the application of the death penalty. However, I was left thinking that the death penalty was, in a way, an appropriate punishment for such a crime.
Now, while I am perhaps slightly pro-death penalty, I am not hardline and I consider my views open to change. While I can see Kieslowski's point (the chain of killing), I'm not sure if I completely bought it.
The great thing, however, that I believe Kieslowski achieved, is to promote discussion on this issue. The facts are laid out there for you to make up your own mind - he never uses manipulative tactics to push his own view.
reply
share
westhamu
16 years ago
I tend to agree with the intent of your missive srstolz but wish to clarify a few things. I'm Australian and I know we can't be proud of our treatment of the indigenous population (a pro-rata gaol inmate figure clearly way out of whack with the percentage of aboriginals incarcerated as compared to the rest) and the egalitarian myth I grew up with was always a bit 'iffy' from the start but some assertions of yours are just plain wrong.
Weapons are not readily accessible here. Yes, if you're a crim you can get guns underground but tell me a country where you can't. Hand guns are illegal, automatic weapons are non-existent and unless you own a farm and are squeaky clean you'll never get near a pissy 22. You can go to gaol for possessing an air rifle!
As for lumbering us in the same bag as the US and SA; I'm no statistician but I'll bet London to a brick that their murder rates are ten times ours.
Now to the nub. I know for a fact that the last hanging in Australia was Ronald Ryan in 1967(I was seven). He was a nasty piece of recidividist criminality but there was a fair bit of angst then as to whether he deserved to die. Now, I don't know what your definition of 'leading practitioners' is but not doing something since 1967 would excuse us from that ilk I would have thought. In fact, it would even excuse us from the definition of 'practitioner'. I know if I went to a surgeon who claimed he was a 'leading practitioner' but his last op was '67 I'd be walking.
reply
share
pauldada
10 years ago
You're dead wrong about who uses capital punishment. US states execute about 40 convicts a year (Amnesty Int'l figures to 2013). Australia and South Africa don't have the death penalty at all. The big executioners? Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, and then far and away China, with more than 2000 judicial killings a year.
A lot of countries don't announce their executions; Singapore, for instance, hangs an unknown number of convicts every year, but you can bet that per capita (5M population) it's a lot more than the Americans put to death. And that's a place that has NO access to firearms.
Capital punishment isn't a response to 'profoundly violent' societies. I'd argue that the US isn't even all that violent, especially given that it is an extreme gun culture, with an entertainment industry that gorges itself on murder stories.
CP is more about extreme notions of justice in societies with black-and-white moral views (Sharia, anyone?) and/or a desperate need to exert police control over the citizenry in order to maintain political power.
reply
share