Thanks for posting the quote from Ross Byrd, by the way – shame that his view wasn’t mentioned in any of the articles I encountered.

Even from a strictly but truly retributive point of view, which focuses on the “moral accountability” of offenders and the vindication of society’s norm, the death penalty is an utter failure, because it sets an example of lethal violence defeating the value of life it supposedly is vindicating. And a vital element of true retribution, as authors such as Dan Markel have observed, is an invitation for the offender to live in the future according to society’s norms, even if in a prison setting under a “natural life” sentence.

Thus, even from a retributive point of view, sentencing Lawrence Brewer to life in prison performing some dignified and useful labor to help make restitution to crime victims and their families and to society at large would have been much more to the point than the brutality of another killing.

However, while this might be one element of restorative justice, we in the U.S.A. need also to look in the mirror at the social conditions and inequalities that promote crime, and especially violent crime. Ritual human sacrifice is not the solution. Thank you again for a most thoughtful article!

I did take biology at A level, but I haven’t studied it since then. And I’m definitely not versed in evolutionary psychology!

In fact the main things I’m trained in are English Literature and Theological Research (focussing mainly on mythology and philosophy). All the science I’ve picked up has been in the form of idle scraps by the roadside – some of them, though, admittedly big enough to make my metaphorical pockets suffer.

Glad you liked the post by the way, cheers!

I am not a fan of censorship in any form either; having one board of people saying “This film is unsuitable for any kind of person anywhere” is going a little over the top. Not everyone is a moral crusader, and not everyone mimics everything they see in films (and if they did, I suppose after seeing all those films where superheroes jump in front of trains and stop them, or something similarly life-endangering, they’d probably be dead already).

You have come to some profound conclusions about me on the basis of 22 of my words.

Fair enough – I don’t pretend to know you. For what it’s worth, maybe I crticised you too harshly, there’s no call for personal abuse so I apologise for that. But I do stand by what I said concerning your opinion of the situation in the Middle East: ‘Iran under Ahmadinejad or Egypt under Mubarak?‘ This, to me, is rank nonsense of the ‘white man’s burden’ school, and deserves to be called as such.

Actions are evil, people are just misguided? From Hitler and Stalin to Brady and Hindley? Misguided?

I call Godwin on you.

What I said was ‘the most chilling fact of people we call ‘evil’ is that they think they’re doing what is right, or at least what is best.’ I think this is fair to say of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao; they did what they thought was best to do. This certainly doesn’t make what they did good or laudable or even excusable. What they did was horrifying. But the fact that they committed their atrocities in the pursuit of what they considered to be right is what makes their actions particularly chilling, and a useful lesson from history. To designate such people simply as evil denies the fact that they, like us, were human; that we are potentially capable of such atrocities. How else can you explain the fact that – to return to Nazi Germany – so many ordinary Germans were complicit in their genocide? That the British returned Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis to Germany? That US Senator and UK Ambassador Joseph P Kennedy viewed such violence against Jews as Kristallnacht as bad not in and of themselves, but in the negative publicity they generated for the Nazi regime, which he saw as a solution to the ‘problems’ of Communism and the Jewish people?

Still, I think that ‘misguided’ is probably the wrong word to use; it’s not strong enough. Probably more apposite would have been ‘deluded’, or simply ‘insane’. The central point I was trying to express was that people commit atrocities not because they had a desire to perform evil acts, but that those acts they consider to be good (or at least ‘best’) are to other eyes – such as our own – worthy of the name.

Take the British return of refugees mentioned above. This was enacted in 1939, before the horrors of the extermination camps were known to the world; but after Kristallnacht. Was there evil intention? Possibly not – I’m not a historian, but given the UK’s desire to avoid war with Germany, appeasement was a possible aim. Evil? I don’t know; certainly for the refugees returned. Deluded? Given the uselessness of appeasement, I think that’s fair. Misguided? Certainly. (Maybe it was the right word after all.) But the thought of bundling those desperate people onto a plane ride back to their deaths is sickening.

Another example. Take Thomas Midgley Jnr. He was the bright spark who introduced the modern world to both leaded petrol and CFCs. The former he invented in order to prevent ‘knocking’, a process by which pockets of fuel-and-air in an internal combustion engine explode outside the ‘normal combustion front’ (the latter being inside the cylinder at a certain correct point during its cycle). Knocking can be utterly inconsequntial or it can lead to complete destruction of the engine and, presumably, anyone sitting on, next or near to it. Midgley was working to increase safety; but the consequence of his actions was to lead to massive air pollution and, possibly, more deaths than knocking. Ditto CFCs. Prior to their introduction, fridges made use of ammonia and other toxic chemicals to keep cool. Leaks were potentially fatal. But CFCs, we now know, have led to the destruction of the ozone layer (unless you don’t believe this, in which case they still have. The consequences of Midgley’s actions were, arguably, evil – especially from an environmental standpoint. But his intentions were good: he was deluded.

I bet you believe there are solutions to problems

Of course. The existence of a problem implies – but, of course, doesn’t necessitate – a solution. Even if a problem is entirely intractable, some approaches are better than others. As you say, trade-offs.

that all it needs is the right programme implemented by the right people (the elite, the Anointed), whereas I subscribe to the classically tragic view and there are no solutions, only trade-offs.

Agreed. But some trade-offs are more palatable and, ultimately, more effective than others.

Let’s take the Mubarak/Ahmadinejad example:

Would you have Iran under Ahmadinejad or Egypt under Mubarak?

I infer from what this, Badger, that you believe that in order to ensure Egypt doesn’t become a dangerous Islamist state, Western powers need to ensure that a puppet dictator remains in power (presumably, should the Egyptian people gain freedom of political expression, their first desire wouldn’t be to sort out the problems within their own borders, but rather to start a religiously-motivated war with the West). In effect, we’re trading the freedom of political expression in Egypt for security at home.

First, it should be pointed out that the Islamic Revolution in Iran that has led to the power of Ahmadinejad was a reaction against the dictatorship of Shah Pehlavi. The democratically-elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown in a coup orchestrated by the British and the American secret services in 1953, following his move to nationalise the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This was obviously unacceptable to the British.

The deposition of Mosaddegh led to an increasingly brutal dictatorship of the Shah during which he became, concurrently, increasingly dependent on Western support to maintain power. Even while he extended suffrage to women and instituted other reforms SAVAK, the Iranian security police, were taught Nazi (them again) torture techniques by the CIA, according to the Chief CIA Iran analyst Jesse Leaf in 1979. SAVAK had powers of censorship over all media and utilised torture in the pursuit of political dissidents. Unrest grew.

Eventually, of course, the Shah was deposed. A fundamentalist Islamic government moved in to take his place; perhaps, given the obvious Western backing for the Shah, the Iranians were naturally suspicious of all things associated with the West, such as scientific materialism, secularism and consumerism. I don’t know; as I say, I’m not qualified. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright (who arguably is) said of the US-and-UK-backed coup: “The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. … But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.” Once again, we see good (or at least, positively self-serving) intentions leading to negative consequences.

But perhaps this serves to illustrate the ridiculousness of your assertion, Badger: why should the Western entrenchment of Mubarak not itself lead to the arising of another Ahmadinejad, given what occurred in Iran?

Mubarak, much as the Shah, had extended police powers; censorship and political disenfranchisement were the order of the day. Any non-governmental political activity was strongly curbed. Human Rights Watch alleged that torture – they have documented dozens of cases of torture and death under his government – contributed to the uprising against him. The similarities with the Shah in Iran seem obvious, if a bit broad. But I don’t think that undermines my point, Badger: if you fear a fundamentalist government seizing power in Egypt then arguably the worst thing to do is provide backing for a repressive regime; and it’s possible that the extent to which the West supports the repression will be inversely proportional to the extent to which its eventual successor rejects the West.

Your intentions are good, but the outcome would be evil. You are misguided.

I wouldn’t have wasted my time had I known.