'Excrement Attack'

One reading this week stood out in particular - and rightly so. Terence Des Pres' graphic detailing and chronicling of the atrocities that characterized the Nazi death camps was simply disturbing. I am by no means a squeamish person. I've been through the military and I've seen a lot relative to most. But with every line I read, I just shook my head in disgust. It permeated my being... the pity for the prisoners... the sheer audacity and incredulity of it all... questions like 'How could people even get that stage of cruelty and evil' pervaded my thoughts.
From the onset of the title I was a little perturbed and a torrent of unease struck me - 'Excremental attack' - for I was not sure what to expect. And what was delivered I did not anticipate. The atrocities and so the horrid recollections actually revolved around human excrement and that was sufficient to stir the appetite of revulsion in me. What was worse however, was the overarching notion that it was humans who subjugated other humans to these conditions and treatment. Not some alien race bereft of compassion, but humans. Humans coercing fellow humans to consume each others' excrement, to wade in it, to die in it - and all the while enforcing such unimaginable and 'deliberate policy' with conviction and enthusiasm. As he emphatically states:
"The fact is that prisoners were systematically subject to filth.They were the deliberate target of excremental assault."

I was most enlightened to the concept of power as an pernicious and sinister concept that consumes - a corollary of which is the birth of 'a special kind of evil'. Also, the idea that for such men of 'pathological rage', the mere act of killing someone is not enough for something in the victim has escaped the killer's grasp. Hence, everything in a person, defined as a person's 'dignity'.
In addition, the whole concept of 'dehumanizing' the inmates so that those who carried out the policies could continue doing so was a disturbing realization to me. Apparently, killing someone who can't even look you in the eye in that very moment of life/death is easier.. especially so if that person is covered in excrement and is simply of an inhuman form. Lastly, everyone being covered in excrement meant it was hard to for the prisoners to develop any form of solidarity as their morale was too low and all they saw in each other was themselves...inferior, inhuman, and reviling to each other.
Overall, astonishingly disturbing and disturbingly astonishing.

Capital Punishment

Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Capital punishment has been a way of punishing people since time immemorial. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Capital punishment is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections.

People have different opinions on the issue of capital punishment given to a convict. While some think that the death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity.

Proponents of Capital Punishment cite the pros of capital punishment. These include:
1. Deterrence -

• A person who has committed a crime like killing or raping another person should be given death penalty, which is as severe punishment as the act. It is said that when a criminal is given a capital punishment, it dissuades others in the society from committing such serious crimes. They would refrain from such crimes due to fear of losing their lives. This would definitely help in reducing crime rate in society.

2. Utilitarianism/ Fair Justice('An eye for an eye') -

• Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for incorrigible convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death. In addition, Capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice.

However, opponents to Capital Punishment posit the cons which include:

1. It debases us to the same level as that of the criminal -

• If we execute a person, what then is the difference between us and the criminal who has committed the horrifying crime of killing another individual?
  

2. Misappropriate Conviction -

• There is also a chance that an individual is innocent and is wrongly charged for a crime he has never committed. In several cases, a person is exonerated of his crime and proved innocent only after he has been executed. Also, the conviction process is not always just. Often, poor people have to succumb to death penalty as they cannot afford good lawyers to defend their positions.

Hence, the perennial questions remain. Do we really possess the prerogative to take the life of our fellow human beings? If so, who decides? Why and how are they endowed with this arbitrary right?

Euthanasia

Euthanasia or 'mercy killing' may be defined as 'a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering'.
It seems the perennial debate rages on over this area of controversy with no apparent hint of its imminent cessation anytime soon. Proponents of its enactment have cited the fact that Euthanasia provides a way to 'relieve extreme pain' or when a person's 'quality of life is low'. From a practical, almost expediently utilitarian perspective, it 'frees up medical funds to help other people'. Lastly, the whole issue of euthanasia proves itself as another case in the free exercise of individual choice.
On the other hand, advocates against the idea of euthanasia cite that the act deftly devalues human life. Also, they point to the "slippery slope" effect that has occurred where euthanasia had initially only been legalized for only the terminally ill, but laws have been and continue to change to allow it for other cases, or to be carried out non-voluntarily.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/09/italy.euthanasia/index.html

This was the case of the Italian lady who was comatose for 17 years. Her feeding tube was ultimately removed. It was a highly controversial issue to say the least, especially with the Roman Catholic Church's center being in Rome(It is publicly known that deliberate termination of life, ergo abortion and euthanasia etc. remain anathemas of the Church). Many perspectives were voiced - religious, political, medical, ethical and social.. truly a cacophony of factional controversy.

Was her father right in arguing for a sort of involuntary euthanasia for his daughter?
She was his daughter, yes indubitably so. But who has the final say in the situation if not her?