The Blind One

When I say that capital punishment is a crime, I am not saying so because I believe that killing someone for any particular reason is a crime.
Perhaps the word “crime” is not the correct word for what I am attempting to express since it is a word that is normally used to denote behavior that is arbitrarily defined by society as deviant and subject to censure. But I use the word only to make the point that the behavior society condemns is essentially no different then the behavior they themselves indulge by condemning the so-called criminal.
What I'm trying to say is that most “criminal behavior” is the result of individualistically motivated dehumanization of other people, and in fact that would be my definition of crime, if it were up to me.
The key terms in this definition of crime are “individualistic” and “dehumanization”.
By individualistic I mean selfish. So an arbitrarily large group of people can behave just as individualistically as an individual. I use the word individualistic to indicate the true cause of selfishness; a view of the self as essentially independent.
I also avoid the word “selfish” because it is too weak to express the truly “criminal” demension of its definition. In our society, “selfish” does not necessarily mean “criminal”, though in my view, selfishness, or individualistically motivated behavior as I say, should be the very definition of crime.
The second critical term in my definition of crime denotes the specific mechanism used by a “criminal” to detach themselves from the person they intend to victimize. The term “dehumanize” puts the emphasis in the definition on the act of seperating oneself from another person, rather than the behavior that such seperation allows. It does not matter whether we “murder” or “execute” the other person; the real crime is the seperation from that person that occures in our subconscious (i.e. “heart”).
Dehumanization can be mistaken as a “spiritual” crime because of the internal (subconscious) rather than external crime scene, or “location of the crime”. But as I define it, it is not spiritual at all. It is a very real crime that any honest trial could easily expose (unlike conventional behaviorally defined crimes that are almost impossible to prove without an actual confession, which is a dirty little secret that the “Criminal Justice System” would prefer you didn't know). It is relatively easy to conceal your behavior, but almost impossible to conceal your feelings, which when perceived by an honest person (such as a child, or enlightened adult) are as transparent as glass and a direct indication of one's motives (i.e. internal state).
Of course, the problem then with my definition of crime is that unless we live in an enlightened world it can not be practically applied as a form of social control. But the beauty of my definition is that in an enlightened world it would apply itself, and social order would be maintained with no formal effort!
You may say, “Dream on!” and that I will. But my point is only this: The current “Criminal Justice System” is counter productive. It not only fights crime with crime (disguised as “law”), but it in fact generates more “crime”, even as it defines it! It must do this in order to justify its own existence! But it very ingeniously conceals this fact with a system of doublespeak and diversion (Orwell's book “1984” has been dismissed too soon! Also, the movie “A Scanner Darkly” beautifully illustrates exactly what I am saying here, not to mention uncountable other books, plays, and movies throughout history. So it's nothing new, just very well concealed – perhaps too well.)
There is just one more point that I would like to illustrate here. Since, by my definition of crime, crimes occure in the “heart”, it is still possible to kill. But killing would no longer be defined by silly laws as “murder” in one case and “execution” in another (i.e. “lawless” and “lawful”). Instead we would only kill as an act of compassion, and/or necessity (which ends up being the same thing in an enlightened world). It is because of this that I do not challenge my own death sentences. I am not an enlightened person, therefor I do not have the ability to consciously perceive another person's motives. So it is not possible for me to “judge”, even by my own definition of “crime”, whether or not I should or should not die. And this further illustrates also why I have struggled as much as possible to not be a part of the decision process (i.e. “Criminal Justice” proceedings). In the past I have tried to prevent others from becoming involved in that process as well by asking to represent myself, and my recent decision to ask for a court appointed attorney reflects my deeper commitment to the beliefs outlined above; I have realized that trying to protect someone from judging me is a backhanded form of judgement on my own part. I was assuming I knew better than they did. I no longer make that assumption. For all I know, this is an enlightened world, and I am the blind one!