Search This Blog

Sunday, 29 August 2010

The Death Penalty, and the one thing we should all agree on

The Death Penalty is an awkward thing for many of us in the modern period, (or post-modern if you want to be pretentious), to discuss about, some of us support it, others don't, we necessarily must factor in religious, ethical, and moral questions and qualms about Justifications and the Humane manner of executions, leading to all sorts of divides in all sorts of camps about how far many of us will go to supporting the death penalty, or if we support it at all. If you're no stranger to the blogosphere you've likely seen this argument come up again and again, almost as often as hilariously under-informed debates, discussions and slander fests about Religion in the comments of Youtube Atheists and Religious. And like such arguements, the debate never seems to end.

As far as I've seen the same is no different in the Monarchosphere.

However I would like to propose the one crime we should all agree upon, as Monarchists, that should warrant the Death Penalty, the crime of Treason.

Now this opens up all sorts of questions and discussions over 'What is Treason?' and 'Who is a traitor in X scenario with X conditions?' Could Briton Rebel kings and queens that were brought to Rome for Judgement be considered 'Traitors'? Can Counter-Revolutionaries in Republics be considered 'Traitors'? I wont pretend that I will answer these for you, this post is about actually agreeing that the crime of Treason ITSELF be worthy of the punishment of Death.

Personally I say yes, (at great risk to my own legitimacy), if one commits Treason, such as assaulting a Sovereign with intent to Injury, defamation with intention to cause unrest, spying for a foreign power, etc, etc, etc, should truly warrant the Death penalty and here is why, in order of pettiest to severe:
-By these actions an Individual deceives his peers with no regard to their safety
-He ruins the good names of innocents connected to him by business dealings and Acquaintance
-He ruins the standing and risks the estate of his family, both immediate and extended, by his actions. Putting his own desires ahead of his House.
-His actions likely result in injury or death, or in the case of spying, risking the injury, death, and possible conquest of Thousands or Millions of his Countrymen.
-If he is a man of standing, he betrays the trust of the Lower classes, the trust of higher classes, and the trust of his Sovereign.
-If he is not a man of standing, he betrays the trust of all that he would be an upstanding Subject of merit, besmirching the image of the entire lower classes by his base actions, causing distrust suspicion and possible unrest within the nation.
-By endangering his Sovereign he not only shows his disloyalty to his nation and Countrymen, but a callous disregard for everything that Nation is, was or ever will be, by attacking and endangering the enduring symbol of the Nation's continuity, past present and future, that the Sovereign embodies.

All of these crimes show but a glimpse of the tremendous breech of justice that Treason causes, a breech that cannot be filled by simply languishing the Traitor in the worst jail in the Nation for his abominable crimes. Blood must be paid to satiate Justice in this regard, because it is simply not possible for Justice to be served any other way when the crime is against the Country as a whole, blood being spilled is an ugly necessity. It appeases the lower classes, and dignifies the upper classes, and all will know an ugly piece of history has been put to an end once this criminal has been killed. Obviously a Sovereign would have to careful that executing a traitor or rebel wont inspire something worse, as king George VI warned his Government against shooting the Easter Rising prisoners because he had the foresight to see what effect such an action would have, needless to say Parliament didn't listen to their King and here we are.

The rationale behind this would be lost on most republicans, (with the exception of the Americans), as they do not understand how Justice is done by killing the Traitor and not letting him suffer in jail for his whole life. Well, inevitable puns about 'Republican Justice' and the state of most modern Justice systems aside for now, Gents, the reasoning most monarchies, ESPECIALLY in Europe found behind this, was there was no more terrible a punishment for a Traitor's crimes then answering to the Divine for their crimes. And even then the condemned were given their chances to repent before God, not man for man could not forgive them, for their crimes before they met Him. Something that is lost on the modern world.

What do you say? Let us see if we can get another discussion going.


  1. Count me in agreement, though I do hail from the state in the Union that has consistently held the record for the most executions. I would also point out that the late William F. Buckley Jr, the most ardent Republican and pro-American man one could ever find, said that if the British had captured George Washington after 1776 they could have hanged him as a traitor and been completely justified in doing so.

  2. I would tentatively agree, except I should take into consideration the known motive for the Crime. IE, say the Traitor committed his Treason because his family was put in danger by a foreign power, and the only way to secure their safety was to work for said power. I'd allow him off. Mental instability, or actually trying to stop a great evil by his Nation, should allow a lesser punishment too. But outright Treason can certainly warrant Death.

  3. I would possibly make a case if the man's family was endangered, but then the only lesser punishment fit enough is exile or banishment. I would not make the case of letting the criminal go if he were of ill mental health, it is a poor excuse, and very few men of ill mental health have the capacity to work intrigues to such heights as treason

  4. I would agree with the good Servent on mental illness being a poor excuse. Furthermore, with regard to a threat to a loved one's well-being, it does well to remember that there was a time when men were (at least in principle) expected to retain their honour and maintain their loyalty, even if the price was something as terrible as the loss of family. Of course, this would have been an attitude at least somewhat easier to maintain in an age other than ours, which considers post-mortem existence and the realm of spirit a mere lifestyle choice.

    As for treason against an Irish monarch, Irish native law seems to have prescribed three forms of death penalty - hanging, slaying and the pit.

    For circumstances that demanded a certain degree of leniency, setting adrift was another punishment. This one was often used to deal with punishing serious crimes by women. In the present day, this might be reinterpreted as banishment from the realm, the confiscation of property and wealth, and the withdrawal in perpetuity of legal, social and economic rights and standing within the state of the individual and, potentially, his or her family.

    And as for my blog, Master Servent, it shall sadly be a little time: speeches, studies, and endless proofreading are to hand. Perhaps in a month or so...the burden seems a little heavy, considering I'd wish to offer a bilingual content, in part at least...

  5. Certainly, I can accept the argument here of treason warranting the death penalty (circumstances of duress may mitigate the penalty, but like you said, the man has proven himself less than loyal to his nation, and thus must be thrown out). In this case, as in others, it is necessary to ensure the security and sovereignty of the nation.

    And that is the point - the security and sovereignty of nations in the West is undermined by its own leaders. Berthold Brecht once quipped that governments might find it easier to dissolve the people and elect a new one in its place, and that seems to be exactly what they are doing by creating multi-culturalist societies.

    There's nothing wrong with having many cultures in a single nation, but there is always one host culture, or some common thread among the many (eg the Christians in the Holy Roman Empire), and I think many have forgotten that the host culture must survive and be strong and flourish if it is to successfully host other cultures (and reserve the right to throw out those who attack and insult said host culture).

  6. Speaking of governments dissolving the people:
    "Migration was intended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern of the country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing."

    I'm not a fan of the Telegraph (no surprise there) but were I an Englishman, I would be engulfed in white-hot rage at this treasonous behaviour by Labour.

  7. i personaly, do not think the death penalty should be used for a first offense, with the exception of genocide charges (i consider genocide to be the supreme crime, once you have commited it you are irreversably going to hell, and can never be forgiven, people who commit genocide can do nothing to make themselves more evil either) if you commit genocide any punishment short of death is the law being unjust, once is enough, in some cases if the person dies before being punished i think that postumous execution (diging up a persons corpse just to preform an exceution on it) is fine (it is unnaceptable for all other crimes)treason, and other war crimes i am not sure about weather they should carry the death pennalty for the first offense, and i know that no other crime should (for the first offense) i have little wrong with the death penalty for the second offense on