The Ultimate Crime...
Finished reading "In Cold Blood" last night and, coincidentally, watched "12 Angry men" last night too. Both film and book deal with mans right to (through some judicial process or other) deal out death to those "deserving" it- do murderers deserve to be murdered? Is a "life for a life" as easy to apply as it is to say- and is it just? It is, if you consider "justice" to be weighing someone against his crime on a pair of black and white scales.
Actually, the film deals with the likelihood of a mans/men knowing with enough certainty the "truth" of a case, with enough certainty to be able to (themselves or through others) take someone's life, whereas the book deals with the right of men to apply the death penalty even when no reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of the accused. The title, "In Cold Blood" at the beginning of the book, right up until the end actually, seems to be referring to the crime of the accused: then suddenly, you realize it also if not wholly, refers to the crime of the state, of the judge and jury who carry out the ultimate crime on the criminals themselves.
It's a tough nut to crack, but to me, I think only God can rightly end life, just as only God can create it. Man only "passes on" what God originated, and whether Man can act for God (in his absence?) has always been debated, but personally I think that those who have presumed that man CAN act for his Creator have caused more harm than good in this world. Not that I'm attributing any blame to those who have judged/governed in his stead- someone has to!- for if God wished otherwise, some may say, then why does not he tell us otherwise, or do otherwise than (apparently) nothing himself?
Actually, the film deals with the likelihood of a mans/men knowing with enough certainty the "truth" of a case, with enough certainty to be able to (themselves or through others) take someone's life, whereas the book deals with the right of men to apply the death penalty even when no reasonable doubt exists as to the guilt of the accused. The title, "In Cold Blood" at the beginning of the book, right up until the end actually, seems to be referring to the crime of the accused: then suddenly, you realize it also if not wholly, refers to the crime of the state, of the judge and jury who carry out the ultimate crime on the criminals themselves.
It's a tough nut to crack, but to me, I think only God can rightly end life, just as only God can create it. Man only "passes on" what God originated, and whether Man can act for God (in his absence?) has always been debated, but personally I think that those who have presumed that man CAN act for his Creator have caused more harm than good in this world. Not that I'm attributing any blame to those who have judged/governed in his stead- someone has to!- for if God wished otherwise, some may say, then why does not he tell us otherwise, or do otherwise than (apparently) nothing himself?
posted by John Doran-Armstrong at 4:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home