A Light-hearted Look at State Sanctioned Homicide

When it comes to punishing the worst of the worst, is the death penalty the answer? Perhaps a fate worse than death, suggests Charlie Pickering.

Coincidentally, two things happened last week. First, a medium-level political shit-storm erupted after a Labour frontbencher espoused the abolition of the death penalty in Asia within days of the anniversary of the Bali bombing. The second was the European Day Against the Death Penalty, which passed without incident.

At first (and by first, I mean "inflammatory") glance, this prompts a few questions such as: Are the Europeans that insensitive?; Have they even heard of the Bali bombings?; And "Where's Europe?"

At second (and by second, I mean "considered") glance, this suggests that perhaps ethical decisions like "should we support the death penalty?" should be made unencumbered by politics.

Essentially, Robert McClelland got himself into trouble because of timing. He said what he said not only in the lead up to an election but also at a time when the grieving of victim's families would be at its most acute. This is about as bad as organising an Oktoberfest in Tel Aviv on the same weekend as Passover. No matter how good your festivities are, people aren't going to be happy.

It is utterly hypocritical to argue against the death penalty for Australian criminals abroad and in favour of the death penalty for Jamal Islamia bombers, yet they continue to do so in order to not appear soft on terrorists. The term "catch-22" was invented for exactly this scenario. So was "irony", but I'm not sure too many people can see that just yet.

It's difficult. Something in our gut wants to unleash the most extreme punishment possible on those who have harmed our family members, which is why decisions about retribution should not be in the hands of those wronged. If it is an eye or an eye, what's to say you won’t try to take a solid piece of nose, ear and testicle while your there. Lynch mobs have waned in popularity for a reason: recruitment was easy, but repatriation was tricky, what with all the conscience, guilt and cold light of day to deal with.

The timing was bad, but the point is a valid one. If we decide on principle that we don't support the death penalty, then it gives us clear parameters for what we may support in the future when the need arises.

Or maybe I've got it all wrong. Maybe what nobody’s brave enough to say is that this isn't about consistency or parity, just good old-fashioned bloodlust. But if that's the case, surely there's something more spectacular than a firing squad?

Let me tell you about a bloke called Prometheus. He is an ancient Greek who stole fire from the gods and gave it to humans. This made Zeus so angry that he chained Prometheus to a rock where every day an eagle would peck out his liver. Every night his liver would magically grow back so it would be ready for pecking again the next day. This went on for many years.

Does the phrase "fate worse than death" ring a bell? Surely scientists can't be that far off a fast-regenerating liver by now. And I’m sure we could train the Eagles. But unless we’re ready to get truly mythical on the asses of our enemies, let's just remember that there are no electric chairs on the high moral ground.

- Charlie Pickering