 |
Criminality,
and the way of handling it, is probably a question about personal responsibility (and the lack of it),
ideas, viewings, and moral. For the moment I'll do the big mistake to ignore explaining the delicious
difference between moral and ethics. Also the splendid difference between personal reality
and the real reality. |
| Karla F. Tucker | |
Official
homepage
Mitigating
evidence
Part of letter
to governor |
Karla Faye Tucker became 38 years old.
She was killed in prison, February 3, 1998, by assistance of state law, for participation in
murder. This is not so much a page about Karla Faye Tucker, as it is about the aspects
behind the idea of killing. In that sense it will also be a reminder of all others whom have been in
the same position as Karla F., and still is.
| | | * * * |
For the kindness
of letting me use
the picture I want
to thank
Dave Kirschke at
LifeWay Services / FamilyLife Training Center
P.O. Box 134 Hungerford,
Texas 77448 | For some reason some situations not
just allow, but presuppose, killing. An example of that is war. So it all has to be a question
about situations, ideas, and... moral. The german philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein givs an
interesting aspect of the social structure in a socitey, when he writes: "People who don't have
need for transparency in their reasoning are lost for the philosophy." For Wittgenstein philosophy
means "the logical grammar" of the language. The reasoning behind... Lets take a look at deathpenalty
from this aspect. |
| | * * * |
| | The husband of the woman being
killed by Karla F. Tucker, said in an interview things that told more about his sorrow, anger, and
upsetness, than anything else. His loss is only fully understand- able by someone having the same
experience of losing someone very close. He said something like this, that Karla F. Tucker was going
to hell where she belonged, and that his wife was going to take care of her when Karla was dead.
This surprised me a lot. He couldn't possibly mean that his own wife was in hell?! His anger was fully
understandable. It's maybe "ok" when a single person goes down like this, but definitly not when whole
groups of people, and also nations getting illogical or even unwilling for transparency. |
| |
| | Penalties in general, and
deathpenalty specifically maybe ought to be looked at as the warning for the ones setting it up and
having it executed. "This is what will happen if I do as they do." Because it has obviously no impact
on already criminal and people starting a criminal life for surviving. If I cannot respect personal property,
life, and being a part of a society, then it shows my possession of unsolved personal problems. As
long as I'm showing lack of respect for the many aspects of life, I will look for the same within others
and have them suffer for it. A criminal will have the not-the-same to suffer more. It's called moral. Group
identity. In this way I will hold my own problems as executive for my own life. Others being objects,
not individuals, and it's always "their fault". |
| |
| | The petition for pardon
written by Karla F. to the governor shows how she transform from her moral group viewing, to a personal
standpoint breathing the sense of ethics. The governor could have shown a bit of a religious standpoint,
since this is somewhat important in the US, as a label for a group possession, but the responsible persons
did obviously not trust the sense of the words in the petition, because(?) they knew themselves that the words
they use are not necessarily true and suitable for transparency. Or because of the knowledge that they would
not be elected again if they didn't follow the will of the moral of the group of electers? In both way condemning
others because of their own knowledge of themself. Mitigating evidence was also obtainable. |
| |
| | One might ask, why is
the punishment necessary? Are the rules so stupidly made up (that someone just have to brake them),
or is it the rulemaker trying to hold back self for the own problems ruling? To live within a tradition,
getting it as a heritage, whether it's religious or in other terms some kind of social structure, it makes
the whole thing spectacular if someone ask you to look at it from the outside. If you do not look upon
something from the outside, you'll only be a part of it, and for a very possible probability even ruled by it.
It might be named religion, philosophy, art, justice or whatever. Some might even look upon it as an excuse not
to look upon it from the outside. A society is not static. Rules being made up for a specific reason
at the time, shows explicitly the evolving of the society when the old rules collide with the real reality
here and now. |
| |
| | The future belongs to
the individual with the ethical aspect of life, not to the moral groups of today. Stay clean, and you'll see.
A socitey taking care of life, knowing that life is fair, that one will have what one prepair for, will have
the prosperity that isn't here today. Much of german origin has been imported to the US after the second
world war (nothing mentioned, nothing forgotten) though not the jurisdiction, so why should not
the Wittgenstein reasoning find it's way there too, sorting some up? |
| | Lennart Arivall |
|
