When a murderer is apprehended, he will merely be detained and an attempt made to reform him. Fenn clearly thinks that this is inadequate but, when he catches Pedro Dover, seems to change his mind:
"''Don't worry,' Fenn said. 'You're not worth killing.' He put a foot on the creature and held it down while he called the constable." (p. 210)
"...the creature..." "...it..." This is still a human being that we are talking about here. Would Fenn have killed Dover if he had respected him as an antagonist?
I think that we can have a society where there are less and less motives for violence. People fight for food if it is scarce but not if it is abundant. People with different beliefs can live amicably and share each other's festivals. And so on. Peace is possible although not inevitable.
I would want Dover, when apprehended, to think that he was about to be summarily executed. It would seem appropriate that he should think that he was about to suffer an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth etc, then live to think about that.
16 comments:
Famine doesn't usually produce a lot of killing -- some, but surprisingly little. Mostly people just flee, or sit down and die.
Anyone who's done criminal law can tell you that the -main- motive for lethal or potentially lethal violence isn't money.
It's emotion -- jealousy, hatred, feelings of personal or territorial violation. Sexual jealousy and related emotions are a big one, generalized rivalry for status and power and turf following along closely behind.
As for "living together", I suggest you take a look at the former Yugoslavia. For two generations Croats and Serbs and Bosniaks were "living together in peace", celebrating each other's festivals, etc.
They must love each other!
Wrong.
Tthe situation changed and they pivoted on a dime to start killing, raping, burning, torturing, expelling and so forth.
It turns out that what let them "live together in peace" was threat of punishment and overwhelming force. A heavy weight. When the weight was removed, things snapped back as if the intervening lifetime hadn't happened at all.
I've been in several kill-or-be-killed situations. None of them involved economic rivalry of any sort.
My conclusion from both personal experience and my study of history is that killing other human beings is among the most human of all actions.
It's the default state; all others are exceptional, which means when the pressure is removed, things snap back to "normal" for human beings.
Otzi the Iceman normal.
As for Dover, if it were safe (no retribution against me, basically) in Fenn's situation I'd have killed him on general principles.
Not because he "deserved" it, but simply because he was demonstrably a dangerous person to let continue to exist.
Removing him would be a simple, cheap, easy way to make the general environment safer. So why not?
OK... I tend to look on the bright side of life but there is certainly a dark side out there.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: And I disagree, people do not fight and kill each other for the too simple reasons you proposed. Here I agree with Stirling. And I see no reason to think that wil ever change, as long as human beings are still HUMAN.
And I do sympathize for Fenn's contempt for the "creature" which had killed his friend. Nor am I opposed, in principle to capital punishment. My view remains that for the very worse crimes the death penalty is a legitimate punishment. That said, I have no objection to making it hard to carry out. E.g., thru convicts having the right of appeal.
Mr. Stirling: Where I feel compelled to disagree with you is with your suggestion that the best thing for Fenn to do would be to "execute" Pedro Dover. However much I might dislike how the cybercosm was dominating Earth, it was still a civilized regime. Civilized people don't unnecessarily take the law into their own hands by carrying out unlawful executions. It was right of Fenn to call the local police constable and turn over the "creature" to him.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: I didn't say it was the "best" thing; I said that's what I'd have done in his place.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Apologies, for missing that nuance! Then I would have to specifically disagree with you, in that case. For the reasons I gave. For anyone to take on himself the powers of judge, jury, and executioner reminded me of this bit from Judges 21.24: "In those days there was no king in Israel, but everyone did that which seemed right to himself." I.e., anarchy!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: the ubiquity of the legal system is largely a "legitimizing myth".
In point of fact, not only are less than half of murders (usually) solved, only a minority of murders are ever reported as such, even in advanced countries with good data-collection and well-developed administrative systems.
Mostly it's 'missing person".
Jimmy Hoffa got a lot of attention because he was prominent, and because the people who killed him had revealed that they wanted him dead, but note that despite really intensive investigation, nothing was ever proved and no charges were ever laid.
A hair matching Hoffa's DNA was found in the car of someone who was probably involved, but there was no way of showing -when- it was deposited there.
In the vast majority of cases, a person goes missing, there's no body, any investigation is pro-forma and rapidly peters out, and that's it. In fact they were killed and the body disposed of.
Mostly the murders that are solved are impulse killings or the product of some dumb junkie sticking up a 7-11 and shooting someone, or the equivalent. Even then, it's a flip of the coin whether a successful case can be made.
In point of fact, premeditated murder is the easiest serious crime to get away with and go scot-free; much more so than non-lethal assault or armed robbery.
Locally, a woman died in a house fire in 2018. A guy started the fire in order to kill her but has just been convicted and sentenced only because he confessed and a search for evidence confirmed his confession by which time he was trying to deny it. Bad news.
Paul: exactly. If he'd just kept his mouth shut, he'd have walked.
This case touches us. We know those involved.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Granting what you said, about how many murders are actually unsolved, I still believe it's the duty of the state to at least try, sometimes, to close missing persons or murder cases. The alternatives would seem to be going back to vendettas, feuds, or families negotiating weregilds with each other for resolving offenses. That still seems to lead to anarchy.
Paul: Sometimes a criminal might feel remorse for his crime and confess it to the authorities. Something I can respect, except this guy tried to retract. Not good, that you knew the victim and the murderer.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Oh, sure, that's essential to maintaining order.
Paul: one thing to remember (and it's brought out by cases like this) is that all human beings are potential killers.
This is why I find demands for "feeling safe" utterly stupid.
Nobody is safe in a world with human beings in it. That just for starters.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Yes, ALL of us are potential killers. Even a saint can go bad and become a monster. To deny that is folly.
Ad astra! Sean
Btw, England was unusual in that as far back as the 13th century it was legally required that all deaths be registered and that a government official inspect the body and record the cause and circumstances of the death.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
That I had not known. So things like coroners and coroner inquests goes back that far. I would have thought most records about deaths would be from parish reports of deaths and burials.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment