In the mirroring article below, sections marked in bold are text I replaced from the Anti-Death Penalty Alliance’s original to satirize how the Alliance’s original work only requires changing a few words to present complete position reversal.
Portions of the original text are directly deleted without further notation.
Anti-Death Penalty Alliance Original Mirrored Article (Note 3)
Because of the Tainan throat-slashing case, some friends begin to waver, and ask me, “Seeing such a case, both sides are the socially vulnerable, do you still support the death penalty?” I truly thought carefully about this for an entire day, and now I answer this question: “Yes, because of this, I can only think more seriously about supporting the death penalty (Note 2).”
I can understand everyone’s anger, because I myself am very angry, and no one can witness such a case without being moved. I can also understand that because we care, because we’re upset, it’s easy to have the words “death penalty” float into our minds. I cannot even guarantee that in the future no incident will occur that angers me so much that “death penalty” appears in my mind, making me want to shout it as justice. It is precisely because of this that I must now work hard to support the death penalty (Note 2).
If at that time, the death penalty had already been buried in history, I would only be able to shout it in my mind to vent anger, but could not implement it in reality.
Even though I know “abolishing the death penalty” is partly correct. The death penalty cannot reverse tragedies already occurring, nor can the death penalty possibly become an injustice to an innocent wrongfully convicted person. Someone will definitely mention wrongful convictions at this point, but the throat-slashing case genuinely occurred and could not possibly be a wrongful conviction.
If we are to achieve justice in this individual case solely through abolishing the death penalty, then we cannot avoid the question: “What justice do we offer the victim?”
Following the same logic, we should execute the person who caused the victim’s death, and we should even execute our government, because the perpetrator was released by the state’s authority. But we cannot execute a government; should we execute the person representing those who support abolishing the death penalty? (Note 1)
So long as the death penalty exists, it realizes so-called “justice,” though it might also cause irreversible tragedy. Because those sitting in judgment are people, not machines.
Therefore, while we support the death penalty (Note 2), we should further improve our judicial system. I’m not saying those who err don’t deserve punishment, but life sentences aren’t sufficient. Through parole and amnesty, it gives the guilty opportunities to reoffend, causing regrets that cannot be salvaged.
Perhaps you’ll further say, why should we spend money feeding these bad people? But the fact is, prisoners must labor to pay for meals, and half their wages go into the crime victim protection fund. They can contribute, but the prerequisite is that we don’t worry about prison administration costs, labor expenses, or even that everyone bears the risk of recommitted crimes after parole and amnesty.
Consider how inadequate our nation’s victim protection system is; but without the past suffering and hardship these victims endured, how much worse could this system be?
I’m a romantic. I’m too not practical, so I support the death penalty (Note 2).
From this concrete case, you can see that perpetrators and victims are opposing sides, while victims and their survivors represent the absolute vulnerable.
Executing this perpetrator, executing the next heinous offender, sparing no one who angers both gods and humans… can we then live in a safe society?
No. Because the perpetrator blindfolded themselves, waiting for the government to shirk responsibility under the human rights banner, hiding behind the death penalty abolition alliance, letting us work toward social improvement, discovering and preventing crime causes, all collapsing in perpetrators’ repeated reoffenses.
I’m too romantic, so I can only work more seriously to support the death penalty… (Note 2)
Notes:
- See relevant news: “Man convicted of murder paroled reoffends, sentenced to second life term.”
- I reiterate, I am not supporting or endorsing the death penalty system, I only accept the system’s existence. The supporting statements in the mirrored article are purely to echo the absurdity of the original work.
- This mirrored article may have somewhat unclear logic. Please read the original first, then this mirrored article, and you’ll better understand what I’m trying to convey. My goal is not to write an article supporting the death penalty system, but to highlight the contradictions between fantasy and reality in the Anti-Death Penalty Alliance’s arguments. Actually, seeing how few textual replacements in this mirrored article can change an article’s tone should tell you something.
Editor’s Personal Thoughts
Regarding this reposted mirroring article, I originally only intended it for private discussion with friends and initially didn’t plan to make it public. Because I felt that once formally published, it would not only invite accusations from that association of copyright infringement, but also risk having my own position pigeonholed. (Let me offer a disclaimer: the modifications to the above article are intended for public discourse on issues, conforming to fair use for public interest.)
If someone comes forward to criticize this mirrored article, perhaps I’d delete it after a few days anyway—of course, the critic must offer substantive arguments.
My main purpose in modifying the article (Note 3) is actually to tell everyone that if an article on abolishing the death penalty written by the Anti-Death Penalty Alliance president, simply with me adding and deleting a few words, can transform into an article supporting the death penalty, this shows that whether supporting or opposing the death penalty system is merely a debate between the strongest spear and the strongest shield. It’s just that we happen to not live in a world that’s only black or white.
I don’t give a damn about the contributions of those extremely rare antisocial criminals.
Law is inherently a product of compromise, so of course is the death penalty rule. Today, the law wasn’t tailor-made for anyone regarding the death penalty rule—rather, it establishes rules telling people: if you seriously violate others’ rights, you must accept corresponding punishment, and the death penalty simply happens to be the most severe among these punishments.
I also oppose the death penalty system, but in my view, this is the perpetrator’s free choice. Conversely, anyone has the right to choose what they want to do, and the call for abolishing the death penalty, given explicit legal provisions that everyone knows, is what truly violates human rights.
Look, anyone can say pleasant things.