R.D. Kushner
December 4, 2002

In an ideal world there is no need for punishment. In an ideal world no crime exists because human beings would subscribe to a higher moral virtue akin to the "Golden Rule:" Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

In the real world, the romantic nostalgia of this idealism gives way to a system of law which carefully regulates actions and consequences. The hyperboles of "right" and "wrong" are given force and context within a temporal and cultural framework. Punishment becomes the remedy, and the deterrent, for crime; but not completely so - because crime [doing "wrong"] never vanishes in the real world.

Recently the media covered the escapades of a deranged sniper in Maryland and Virginia. Although the motives for these crimes are still unknown, it is fair to assume that the two people responsible for this deviant behavior understood that their actions were unacceptable by the standards of current laws in the United States. The question as to whether or not the killers considered their actions immoral is academic; it is enough to conclude that in carefully avoiding law enforcement authorities, the killers understood fully the nature of their crime and the judicial retribution which will be enacted upon them if they were caught and convicted of these unlawful actions. And yet this did not kept the two killers from continuing to break the law on multiple occasions.

Consider for a moment, even in light of the example above, that there is no "right" and "wrong." Consider that these distinctions are nothing more than creative human applications. For example, ask the question: Is it wrong to kill another human being? The obvious answer is yes. But in the world of crime and punishment there are exceptions to this rule. The most obvious being the distinction of killing in "self defense." To save ones own life, a threatened person is recriminated for killing another human being. To be sure, in some religious and philosophical contexts this distinction smells of hypocrisy, but in the world of crime and punishment it is valid [currently]. If the police had apprehended the Maryland snipers at gunpoint, and had to kill these individuals after perceiving a threat [this threat was of course predetermined as a result of the previous actions of these individuals] there would be no grounds whatsoever to enact punishment upon these officers for killing.

The human mind, in many cultures throughout the world, is probably unified on the distinction of killing in "self defense;" but how does such a belief structure come into being? Where did the rationale for this genuinely agreed belief come from? And who is responsible for its evolution and development? These are largely rhetorical questions, but this does not make them immune from, or beyond introspection.

Through cultural processes more complex than any known synthetic machine, human beings undergo a meticulous conversion. This conversion consists of the altering of the blank canvass of the mind into believing any number of morally relative half-truths; the creation of a framework for morality and integrity. But culture alone cannot be fully to blame for all the deviant manifestations of the psyche; in truth, the mind invites the creation of the myriad observations, distinctions, and judgments which go into formulating a foundation for human morality - which is the cultural equivalent of distinguishing right from wrong, good from bad. The mind embraces these distinctions as an extension of language; as a tool for classifying and characterizing any number of semiotic and ontological relationships.

A crucial element connecting the concepts of crime and punishment is the concept of "proof." And equally so, is the judgment made of the accused, as to the integrity of their defense; integrity meaning the following: "Doing what one says, when one says they are going to do it." Without the examination of integrity [put more simply and less clearly, "intent"] there can be no further examination of the virtues of any element of "proof." Even the seemingly incontrovertible "proof" of the finding of a murder weapon with the finger prints of the accused, is based solely on the integrity of various law enforcement agents and agencies. Even with the protocol for evidence gathering there is always a leap of faith in the assumption of integrity; without it, the legal system has no moor.

When one begins to think about integrity in this context, it is clear that there is a huge deficiency of integrity in the world, and one begins to wonder if any system of crime and punishment, however successful, can enforce even one percent of the disingenuous claims of integrity in the world. But this is also hyperbole. Most breaches of integrity do not create wars or kill thousands of innocent lives. Most breaches of integrity consist of being late to appointments, forgetting to run errands for friends, and in the small distortions of truth emitted from the mouths of all human beings every day of their lives. But consider that these small moments where integrity is reduced to rubble, as small symptoms which ultimately contribute to the most insidious and most devious of crimes.

Consider the fact that the United States government is attempting to eliminate an unknown number of potential terrorists who intend to harm Americans in the United States and abroad. The number of individuals may as well be infinite; it would actually benefit the situation to consider that the threat to the United States is infinite in scale. This would allow people to see that the long term solution to this threat has not been explored in the least [and that the short term solution has no long term possibility for success - it only sets up a system of perpetual war]. The question "why" has not been asked; and when it is, the myopic mantras about "innocent civilians" and "patriotism" are brandished as an immaculate salve against critical thought. The bandaid of "Homeland Security" is a public relations campaign of jingoed defense-socialism; bigger government under the guise of national defense.

Where would one start if one wanted to eliminate the most horrible crimes of humanity? One would go to the "word." One would base their life on the making and keeping of ones own word, not just in the declarations that others should keep theirs. And since every breach of integrity becomes the cornerstone for the next course of disingenuous masonry in the foundation of ideas and truths, one must not allow for the misapplication of punishment. It is within the framework of crime and punishment that integrity must find its most indomitable stand.

If Democracy is ever to exist, then it's laws and rules must be applied universally, not just where convenient. When four "suspected terrorists" are killed in an American attack in Yemen then the system of democracy has been subverted [1]; innocent until proven guilty is replaced with shoot first and ask questions later. The search for truth has been subjugated by the exploits of the "Wild West." That this action was carried out under the flag of "Democracy in the free world" makes it all the more horrific; a nation should not extol the virtues of democracy while acting contrary to its basic tenets.

If as stated above, there is no "right" or "wrong" in the world, then one might ask whether or not there is reason to claim the distinction between the "right" and "wrong" application of punishment for crimes. One might argue that it is disingenuous to claim these distinctions in one case, but not in another.

Pointing out this disparity is case and point to the argument above. Human beings get to decide the consistency of their moral integrity. Laws are born of the human mind. The only real consideration is to determine if the application of laws, by a government or culture to others, is consistent to the application of those same laws to their own behavior. If a disparity exists then it is not just morality that is at stake, it is integrity and the word. And in the end, that's all there is. The word.

What happens to the word when it is twisted and bent and distorted in a socio-economic game of capitalist lust and moral myopia? The collision between "right" and "wrong" [in the context of "integrity as described above] is sometimes so painfully obvious that it is as if the basic laws of physics have been violated. Within the last two weeks, the United States government has demonstrated its lack of integrity by twisting the word to allow for an easing of clean air laws [1] , and a loosening of logging regulations [2]. The arguments presented are quite reasonable actually [reasonable in the sense that one can easily grasp the flawed logic which is exploited]; but the reasoning is used to bury the truth under miles of carefully formulated lies about the causes and effects of these national laws and regulations. What these lies cover up is the truth about "democracy" in America; it is a democracy now wholly subservient to the economic will of corporations which have bought their influence in the United States government ["special interests"].

If a society requires proof for crimes as a basis for its entire political and legal structure, but then alternately avoids this burden of proof when it is not convenient, then the actions taken are nothing less than crimes themselves. Where there is no integrity there is no proof. And where there is no proof there is no morality to the application of crime and punishment. And when the law is reduced to a set of convenient rules that can be bent and twisted at will, then word has been soiled, and life has no meaning.

Credits:

1. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-11-04-yemen-side-usat_x.htm
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/26/opinion/26KRUG.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/28/politics/28FORE.html