I wrote a letter this morning to The Times [the real, London-based, one]. I venture to reproduce it here, as the word "civilised" is being predictably flung about on this thread [see e.g. Old Dude 4 posts above]. I think it a word best avoided in this argument, for reasons my letter will make clear.

As I have said before, I am ambivalent on the cap-pun issue; but the "civilisation" argument appears to me misconceived and counterproductive, for reasons I hope will become apparent below ~~

The Editor of The Times
Sir, Opponents of capital punishment do their cause no service by their constant appeal to the concept of "civilisation". A good example of what I mean occurs in today's letter from Mr Alan Platt: "The killing of a subject by a state has no place in a civilised society".

States have always executed their criminals. Were the ancient Athenians and the Romans not "civilised societies"? Nor the Chinese and Japanese? Nor the ancient Hebrews (just have a look at the capital offences instanced in Leviticus and Deuteronomy)?

I could go on, but my point is made. There is something quaintly ridiculous in the idea that there was no "civilisation" to be found in pretty well the entire world until the time in about the early 20th century that people began to question the efficacy and morality of capital punishment. The present situation whereby many nations (by no means all, especially in the Islamic world) have forgone this particular sanction is but a blip in human history, which quite likely won't last anyhow. The idea that "civilisation" in any way depends on it is self-evidently absurd.

I write not even as a supporter of capital punishment, on which I am ambivalent; but as a lover of accuracy and intelligence in argument.


Michaℇl Groſvℇnor Myɛ℞

MICHAEL GROSVENOR MYER
34 West End   Haddenham Cambridge CB6 3TE
☏ Ely [01353] 740738    mobile✆ 07534 449171