Sunday, September 14, 2008

Torture


A few thoughts on torture:

1. I'm agin' it, on the whole.

2. But those who think that the argument based on pragmatism--"it doesn't work because you'll confess to anything under torture--" is a good one are deceiving themselves. It's a false argument because if it were true that torture was useless in extracting information, the practice would long ago have been discontinued. To be sure, torture to extract confessions in order to prove guilt is largely useless; innocent people will confess to anything under torture. However, when the guilt is already proved and the torturers already know that their victim has information that they need, this argument against torture based upon pragmatism fails. Why shouldn't we use torture on people who are just defying us, teasing us with the fact that they have information we need and can't get from them? Moreover, the knowledge that their information could be swiftly verified, and if proven false the torture reapplied, would "encourage" them to tell the truth. An example of this was when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a key leader in Al Qaeda, was captured and sent to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay. The American interrogators knew that he had information they needed and when he mocked them and refused to give them any, they proceeded to waterboard him. He cracked after a minute and a half and gave them valuable information that proved to be accurate and useful. So torture works, when used skillfully and in the proper situations.

3. This being the case, other arguments must be found; happily, these are readily available and I need not go over them here: the inherent dignity of the human person, the dehumanizing effect upon the torturer, the chance of retribution in kind by the enemy (although when the enemy already tortures as a matter of course this argument fails along with the pragmatic one), and so on.

4. I am of the opinion that the only act that the American government has committed during the war on terror which can be considered torture is waterboarding, which they used three times. They ought not to have used it at those times, but the use of a fairly mild form of torture three times does not a war crime make.

5. I am in agreement with Al Mohler, here, that during a "ticking time bomb" situation torture is allowable; however, and also like Mohler, I believe that such situations occur in truth very rarely and in fancy very often. As such, Mohler is correct in saying that the law should not sanction torture as a policy, lest it give paranoid, foolish or cruel men license to use torture when it is unnecessary. Torture should always be done at the very last moment--and having a law against it with severe penalties in place would ensure that should such a moment arise the decision to torture would be made with the utmost seriousness. I would also expect the law to be merciful on such occasions to the torturers.

6. One of the main reasons why I supported John McCain early on in the primaries (in spirit, because I have reasons for not voting American) was because of his stance against torture. The above note is also in accord with his position.

7. Has anyone ever noticed that torture is used in the Lord of the Rings by the good guys? Behold the following excerpt:

I endured him as long as I could, but the truth was desperately important, and in the end I had to be harsh. I put the fear of fire on him, and wrung the true story out of him, bit by bit, together with much snivelling and snarling.
This was more psychological torture than anything else, but waterboarding mainly relies upon fear as its weapon as well. And do you know who said the above quote? Gandalf the Grey.

8. Given that there is no man alive with the wisdom and moral clarity of Gandalf, the above example should not be taken as an endorsement of torture.

So there are a couple points on torture.

Meanwhile, Peter Eddy has explained why he distrusts McCain's pro-life credentials. I believe that Pete is misinformed about McCain's record on judges, thus here, here, and here. McCain's only potential problem with conservative justices is the McCain-Feingold act concerning campaign finance reform, as I understand it. And he has said that he will not consider this difference to be a litmus test. The Gang of 14 business was one of which I approved, given the political situation at the time and the necessity of preserving the Senate minority's power--particularly as it may well come in handy for the Republicans under an Obama administration. So cool it, Pete. But then again, I am a member of an officially pro-choice party (and likely, alas, to remain so for the forseeable future), so obviously I am not, like Pete, a one-issue voter.




Monday, May 5, 2008

Arnn on Churchill

Once again, a fine piece of writing. This gentleman discusses Winston Churchill based on the newly republished biography by his son Randolph. Some very interesting things are said, and some wise ones.

Saturday, May 3, 2008

Bill Moyers, Hero?

This gentleman skewers Bill Moyers. Quite properly, too.

Sunday, March 30, 2008

Robert Fagles


I heard via the "No Left Turns" blog today that Robert Fagles has died. He composed my favourite translation of Homer's Iliad, and Peter Schramm gives an appropriate good-bye to him:

Robert Fagles has died. It is probable that more literal translations have been done of Homer (and Virgil) than his, but no other had the drive, the "Homeric swagger" (as one calls it), the taking away your breath kind of energy and pace that his had. I have read all aloud and found myself (like a fool, no doubt) speaking in his music for days following. The battles and the hard work and then the great-hearted Odysseus gives living proof to Penelope, and the most understanding man alive wept as he held the soul of loyalty to his breast at last. Thank you, Robert Fagles.

"Rage - Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus' son Achilles..."

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

On Nuclear Weapons


The years of the Cold War are over, and with them the tensions between the great nuclear Powers of the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has fallen, and its successor, Russia, is hardly in a position to challenge the United States for supremacy. Moreover, even though Russia and the United States still possess nuclear weapons, there is no potential dispute on the horizon between these two nuclear Powers that could possibly involve nuclear weapons. Yet each nation still stockpiles large quantities of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. Is this really necessary?

The answer is, I think, largely no--yet there is a crucial caveat to this "no." The most each nation needs is 1000 warheads stockpiled, preferably mostly not on hair-trigger readiness. On the other hand, once nations have nuclear weapons it would be irresponsible and imprudent to get rid of them completely. The only way nuclear weapons are going to disappear from the world is if they are rendered obsolete, which is not on the horizon. The nature of such weapons is such that even if the major nations of the world were to get rid of them, some small nation would no doubt get them and hold the rest of the world to ransom, or come some war the race would be on to re-make nuclear warheads before the other guy. So while continued reductions in nuclear warheads are good, it is highly unlikely that they will disappear, and not a good idea, I think, to talk about getting rid of them completely. Which is why the Bush administration's plans to produce a new ICBM are appropriate and prudent, because they recognize that they cannot let their guard down while other nations still have these weapons. Deterrence will still be necessary, probably for as long as these nations exist. But they should seek to mitigate the threat these weapons pose to world peace, and limit their stockpiles and preparedness.

Friday, February 29, 2008

On Terrorism


An important issue in politics today is the nature of the War on Terror; how it should be waged, if it should be waged, what rhetoric we should use, what means we should use, are all topics that are debated. This post will deal with whether or not we should call those who are the antagonists to the West in this conflict 'terrorists.'

It is an important thing to remember that although 9/11 brought the subject of these kinds of movements and their activities to the forefront of American popular thinking, they are not a new phenomenon. For many years previous to this date the problem of militant organizations carrying out attacks against civilian populations has been one of the issues of foreign policy for most nations. The nation of Israel has dealt with this problem for many years, as has Lebanon, Russia, and the Philippines. Moreover, there have been many movements that do not specifically target civilians, yet are called 'terrorists' by their foes; witness the African National Congress in South Africa during its militant days, the ETA among the Basques, and many others (during the occupation of France during the Second World War, the Germans called the Resistance 'terrorists'). So clearly the term 'terrorist' has been used to describe a wide variety of militant organizations, some of which had good aims, and others which had evil aims (in our eyes).

So the argument runs, 'those who carried out the attacks of 9/11 and who are targets of the War on Terror are merely like the French Resistance, who resisted oppression.' After all, hasn't the West done terrible things in the past against the ethnicities from which the militant organizations spring? It must be admitted that the grievances that Al-Qaeda and others like them claim against the West are not completely illegitimate; after all, if they were all untrue there would be no resentment against the West that would spur new recruits to join. Yet even if these arguments are true, and they are almost always grossly exaggerated and decontextualized, it would still not give Al-Qaeda and their ilk an excuse to take the actions that they have taken.

There is a fundamental difference between proper resistance to oppression and improper resistance, or terrorism. Proper resistance does not specifically target civilian populations. As an example of this, the ANC in South Africa always targeted military and government installations when they rebelled. Now, even this in the situation was inexcusable (which is why Nelson Mandela is a lesser man than Mohandas Gandhi in terms of resistance movements) but nevertheless could not be classified as terrorism. Terrorism specifically targets civilian populations to make a political point, and to cause political change. It is useful to apply the measures of just war to the actions of Al-Qaeda: Proper cause--perhaps; but very open to debate; proper authority--no, as no government has authorized them; no targeting of civilians--no, indeed the whole point of their attacks is to target civilians and so to spur fear in them; proportionality--more difficult, but in general the attacks of terrorists are indiscriminate and so show no care for proportion at all. In all these things terrorism fails to meet the justification of just war.

The words 'terror' and its variants are useful words that should be used very precisely to refer to certain organizations and actions that meet the following criteria:
1) Not a government body, and in the case of actions not authorized by a government body (when governments use these tactics in a war, it is called something different)
2) Commit acts of violence against specifically civilian targets; namely, the using of civilians as pawns to force their governments to do things (once again, when governments use these tactics it is called something different)
Nationalist movements are sometimes terrorist movements and sometimes not; yet the people who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks are not specifically nationalist but rather global. Al-Qaeda has as its aim the intimidation of Western governments so that an Islamic empire may re-emerge. This is not a strictly nationalist aim, but rather a religious/utopian one, one which makes them and those like them all the more odious and so deserving of the epithet 'terrorist.'

Governments doing the acts that terrorists do are committing war crimes or oppression; but by definition terrorists cannot commit war crimes as they are not engaging in war, which must be authorized by a government, and they cannot oppress anyone as they do not rule anywhere. So the term 'War on Terror' is a useful one and should be kept, so long as it is clearly understood who is targeted: organizations like Al-Qaeda that target civilians for political ends.

Monday, February 18, 2008

On Statesmen


What makes a statesman? Is it signing lots of treaties? Is it preventing wars? Is it winning wars? Is it founding great governmental institutions? Is it propagating noble ideas about nationhood? Is it founding a nation? What makes a statesman?

A statesman is one who builds an order, whether it is a national order or an international order. A statesman must have an overall vision for what he wants to do, and must have the savvy to know how to put that vision into effect. A statesman must contribute something lasting to his country and to the world.

Who are examples of statesmen? And why are they statesmen? In the next few posts, I will look at various men throughout history whom I think qualify as statesmen, and examine why they qualify as such. Some are famous, some are not--but each of them had those ineffable qualities of vision and ability.

Lee Kwan Yew
Pictured above, this man is known as the "Kissinger of Asia." His main accomplishment is making the tiny island-state of Singapore into a major world economic power. When he started his rule at the time of Singapore's independence in 1959, Singapore was a poor and defenceless backwater; when he ended in 1990, Singapore was an island of wealth and stability amidst the general poverty of Southeast Asia.

One thing that characterized Lee Kwan Yew was his vision: the government of Singapore knew what it wanted to do, created a blueprint for growth and development, stuck to it, and then after completing it moving on to other things. The government under Lee was (as it remains) extraordinarily competent.

So the primary reason why Lee Kwan Yew is a statesman is because he built a nation-state almost single-handedly into a prosperous and responsible member of the world community. But there are other things about Lee that make him a statesman; his foreign policy efforts, especially after his stepping down from the premiership, are widely respected. As well, he is tactful and self-controlled; witness his care not to overstep his bounds after he stepped down from power in 1990.

Of course, he is not without flaws. An autocrat, he refused to tolerate much political dissent during his career, and even now regularly sues those who criticize him (A little like the Church of Scientology?). Some of his government's policies are harsh and illiberal (illiberal in the best sense of the phrase; that is, opposed to classical liberalism), such as racial quotas for immigration and the capital punishment for drug trafficking. Still, statesmen have used such methods in the past, and Lee is certainly a realist in most matters--which is also important for statesmen.

All in all, Lee Kwan Yew is a statesman due to his role in building Singapore to where it is today.



A Bit of Latin

Quid facis, Catilina? Quid cogitas? Sentimus magna vitia insidiasque tuas. O tempora! O mores! Senatus haec intellegit, consul videt.

Quid: "what," interrogative pronoun
facis: "do/make," a third conjugation -io verb in the second person singular
Catilina: "Catiline," personal name in the vocative; Catiline was a conspirator against Cicero when he was consul
Quid: "what," interrogative pronoun
cogitas: "think," a first conjugation verb in the second person singular
Sentimus: "sense/perceive," a third conjugation -io verb in the first person plural
magna: "great," adjective
vitia: "sins/faults," second declension neuter noun in the accusative plural
insidiasque: "treacheries [and]," first declension feminine noun in the accusative plural with modifying "-que" added
tuas: "your," possessive pronoun modifying 'insidias'
O Tempora: "O Time," third declension vocative neuter noun
O mores: "O habits/morals/character," third declension
masculine vocative plural
Senatus: "Senate," first declension noun in the nominative singular
haec: "this," demonstrative in the masculine nominative
intellegit: "understand," first conjugation verb in the third person singular
consul: "consul," nominative noun; 'consul' describes one of the two executive officers of the Roman Republic
videt: "see," second conjugation verb in the third person singular

What are you doing, Catiline? What are you thinking? We perceive your treacheries and great sins. O Times! O Morals! This Senate understands, this consul sees.
(Marcus Tullius Cicero)

Monday, February 11, 2008

On Certainty

One of the hallmarks of the postmodern mindset is the refusal to believe anything is objectively true--or rather, that human minds can know what is objectively true. Thus the constant admonition to people who persist in the appallingly backwards notion of speaking with a semblance of confidence in a fact is to add words like "I think," or "I could be wrong but..." After all, if you can't know things for certain, why claim in your speech that you can? You're just being arrogant. Some (Brian McLaren comes to mind) believe that certainty is the cause of all the problems in the world both past and present. If only we could be less certain!

On one level, this is perfectly correct. Human minds being what they are, that is, both finite and fallen, they can never apprehend truth objectively or fully. There must always be an element of suspicion about conclusions made by human judgment, for the humble mind of man can, and often does, get things wrong. Therefore humilty is always needed in making a judgment. However, we cannot take this concept to its logical extreme, for there is another element in human judgment that must be taken into account: its being made in the image of God.

Because the human mind is made in the image of God, it is able to apprehend things. Perhaps not fully, perhaps through a clouded glass, but it can see things nonetheless. If it was always wrong, humanity would not be able to function or to put its trust in anything. As it is, one can generally trust that adding vinegar to baking soda will result in a chemical reaction, even if you haven't seen the reaction before. The human mind is capable of seeing results and in evaluating them, so trust in this conclusion about the effects of vinegar and baking soda is not unfounded. Of course, this is an extreme example, one capable of being proven in short order at any time. Other things, such as judgments about human beings or societal systems of religious beliefs, are not so certain and are definitely not so easily provable. Yet they also are able to be judged with some amount of accuracy, because the human mind has the capacity to discern good and evil and true and false with some degree of clarity.

So how do we judge judgments when we know our minds to be imperfect yet not unbroken? A simple solution, one that everyone uses constantly, is the Percentage Solution: if I am 95% sure of something, I am going to speak with certainty about it and am going to act concretely and with confidence upon it. There is no use in saying "I could be wrong but..." about an issue about which one is confident in and wishes to see acted upon. For one thing, it diminishes your authority when speaking. I am much more likely to believe you if you say "this is the case" than if you say "this could be the case, but I might be wrong." In other words, it creates a bad impression and is in very bad rhetorical form. For another thing, it diminishes your confidence in your own judgment and could well result in you becoming a fence-sitter on all issues, or, even worse, liable to be blown by any wind of the moment to endorse any conclusion. All in all, it's better to speak with authority and if proven wrong to retreat graciously. Children are easily persuaded to endorse any position that you take, because they in general trust their elders and do not have concrete principals with which to guide them. This a good thing for children, but in an adult is a very bad thing. "I left childish ways behind me," says the apostle Paul, and like him so must we. Convincing an adult to change his mind on an issue in which he is over 75% sure is a daunting proposition, and usually takes quite a long time. Of course, the things that we are 75% or more sure of ought to be chosen carefully, for sometimes the time doesn't exist to convince us. Military commanders with only one report on enemy movements shouldn't be 75% sure of what they are going to do, or else they may be unwilling to change their minds in time to counter their enemy.

However, even if one is only 50% sure of something, it is wise not to sit on the fence but to act upon that thing. If you are 50% sure that giving your sister a figurine for Christmas would not be appreciated, it is probably not worth a try to get one for her (I am 100% sure that this is not a good gift for my sister--which is why I got her one). If you are 50% to 75% sure of something, then it is probably a good idea to put in a qualifying phrase if the situation is right (Alan Greenspan is a master at this, but then in his field--economics--one is never more than 75% certain of anything). To use a religious example, if I am 60% sure that Calvinism is correct, I am going to try to attend a church that teaches Calvinist doctrine, but I am not going to avoid people who are not Calvinists. Judgments have consequences, but those consequences should be subject to the degree of certainty that one has.

This is only a rough guide, and there is no doubt much more that could be said on this issue (for a further discussion of postmodernism and epistemology, D.A. Carson's "The Gagging of God" is an excellent starting point). In all ages wisdom must correct the overreaches of the time; in the modernist era, a hermeneutics of suspicion was helpful: in the postmodern era, objectivity and the human capacity to know must be affirmed. And even now it appears that postmodernism is falling out of vogue; although what might replace it is anyone's guess.

There are exceptions to this: in the Bible we are assured that we may be certain of some things, and that prolonged doubt is a sin; thus Luke writes his gospel so that Theophilus may know the "certainty of the things that you have been taught." The confirmation of the Spirit gives us certainty; yet always the weak human nature has that niggling doubt, which will probably not be excised until the resurrection.


A Bit of Latin

Homines magnae virtutis tyrannos superare audebant.

Homines: "men," third declension masculine noun in the nominative plural.
Magnae: "of great," adjective modifying the noun "virtutis," in the genitive singular.
Virtutis: "character/ courage," third declension feminine noun in the genitive singular.
Tyrannos: "tyrants," second declension masculine noun in the accusative plural.
Superare: "to conquer/to overcome," verb in the infinitive.
Audebant: "used to dare/ were daring," verb "audare" in the third person plural imperfect.


Men of great courage were daring to conquer tyrants.

Friday, February 1, 2008

Wall Street Journal on Harper's NATO Dare

The Wall Street Journal seems to agree with Harper's position on Afghanistan.

Notice the excellent pixellated portrait of Harper. It is comforting to have a stalwart conservative paper come out in favour of the PM's stance.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

Article about War Films

Every so often one comes across an article that proves that people can still write and think brilliantly. This is one of them.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

On the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan


The other day Prime Minister Harper stated in his response to the Manley Report on the Afghanistan mission that he would respect the report's recommendations. The key element in these recommendations was that unless NATO provided an addition 1000-man battle group to help in Kandahar, the Canadians would withdraw.

It is regrettable that it has come to this, having to threaten to leave a vitally important mission if our allies won't step up to the plate, and I can't help but feel that we should stay anyway. On the other hand, more troops are needed and if we don't get them, the mission may well fail long-term. Hopefully NATO will come up with the 1000 troops needed and we can continue to play our important role in the conflict. It has often been said that the government has failed to state clearly the reasons why Canada is in Afghanistan, for there are compelling reasons why this mission ought to succeed.

There are several perspectives from which a government must approach a decision like this one. Firstly, and most importantly for a government, the perspective of national interest. A government is instituted to prudently guide a nation in its dealings with others, and must think primarily in terms of its own interest; in other words, it must be selfish in the sense of the nation as "self." The invasion of Afghanistan by the Western powers, led by the United States, came about because of the attacks of 9/11. In the aftermath of the attacks, the American government quite rightly demanded that the current (sort of) government of Afghanistan, the Taliban, surrender to it the planners and enablers of the attacks; namely, Al-Qaeda. The Taliban, who had been sheltering Al-Qaeda for many years, refused this request and so it was deemed necessary by the Americans, with the full concurrence of its allies, to remove them from power. This was done, with the aid of the rebellious warlords of the Northern Alliance, and Afghanistan became a zone in which Al-Qaeda and its allies could no longer safely shelter. And here is the first reason why Canadian forces must remain in Afghanistan, and the most compelling: to prevent the Taliban from regaining territory that they can safely operate in and in which they can shelter entities such as Al-Qaeda. The attacks of 9/11 were attacks on Canada not only because of our NATO obligations, but also because around 30 Canadian citizens died as a result. These attacks were made possible because of the safe harbour of Afghanistan, a country which is uniquely suited for hiding entities like Al-Qaeda due to its lawless and decentralized nature. Therefore, it is definitely in the national interest of the government of Canada to contribute considerable resources to the maintaining of a Taliban-free and Al-Qaeda-free Afghanistan.

Secondly, a government must consider the moral perspective. The virtue that ought most to define government, prudence, is dealt with above; the other virtues, like compassion, are dealt with here. This perspective on the mission in Afghanistan is more tentative, because it is not a government's primary duty to root out evils beyond its own borders that do not threaten it directly. On the other hand, the government cannot just ignore gross injustices that occur around the world, and it is often necessary to act to end these injustices. Afghanistan under the Taliban was a place in which gross injustice happened fairly often: women had no rights, repressive religious law reigned, and there was no semblance of political freedom. In Canada especially, this perspective seems to be the best selling point for the mission, at least in the eyes of the press. It is fun, true, to bait radical feminists for their support of radical Muslim groups like the Taliban who if reinstated would oppress women far worse than in their darkest dreams, but there is a serious issue here: we may be appalled by the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia, but we at least have some clout there. For example, a while ago a woman was going to be whipped for being raped (a common occurrence, alas) in Saudi Arabia; after an outcry from the West, her sentence was commuted. If the Taliban were to regain power after a Western retreat, would they listen at all to our pleas? Not likely. The Taliban is composed of brutal, barbaric thugs who richly deserve all the bullets that are shot at them, and who from a moral perspective must be prevented from regaining power.

The two reasons above are not equal in priority, to my mind; the first one is the concrete reason why Canada ought to stay in Afghanistan and provides a simple course of action in all the cases where it comes up; the second one is icing on the cake, the aroma of the steak, to use a couple of food metaphors. It's jolly good that we're preventing the Taliban from ruling tyrannically, but that should not be the main reason why we're in Afghanistan.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Death Penalty Article on the Weekly Standard

Lately I've been looking at the Weekly Standard for my U.S. presidential news, mostly because my normal outlet, National Review, happens to be having a hate-on for my preferred candidate, John McCain. Be that as it may, I found an interesting article about the death penalty and religion here. It makes some interesting points about how belief in the afterlife plays into the support for the death penalty. As well, it points out the fact that secular Europe virulently opposes the death penalty, while having almost no religious life. For the secularist, the death penalty is the truly the ultimate punishment and the end, so it must never be done. For the religious man, the death penalty is only the door to the final judgment, when God shall impose the true ultimate punishment; namely, eternal damnation.


A Bit of Latin

Sine mora curam officio dare debemus.
Sine: "without," a preposition always followed by the ablative.
mora: "delay," a noun in the ablative case
curam: "attention/care," a noun in the accusative case
officio: "duty," a noun in the dative case
dare: "to give," a verb in the infinitive
debemus: "we must/we ought to," a verb in the first person plural

Translation: "Without delay we must give attention to duty."


Wednesday, January 2, 2008

I Am Not Pro-Life


It has often been said, especially by some Catholic thinkers, that one ought to have a "seamless garment" pro-life position. A person who holds such a position is opposed to all killing whether it is abortion or war or capital punishment. The accusation is often thrown around (especially against the "religious right") that people who are opposed to abortion yet support capital punishment or war are hypocritical and should oppose such things to be consistent. This accusation is favoured by those who consider themselves to be part of the "religious left." It is assumed that those Christians who vote Republican (or Conservative) must have a "seamless garment" position but are valuing abortion above the other two "deadly issues." Therefore, you constantly find the religious left arguing that one ought to be a consistent Christian and vote Liberal (or Democrat) and oppose two out of three of the "deadly issues." But this is a foolish argument.
The label "pro-life" was only ever a label, used for its political impact. "Pro-life" sounds better than "anti-abortion," the same as "pro-choice" sounds better than "pro-abortion." But many of those who are politically "pro-life" are not literally against all killing. In fact, probably most of those who are opposed to abortion are in favour of the death penalty and just war. Are they all hypocrites, then? Not in the least--for there is a consistent ethic here that endorses killing in the situations of capital punishment and just war. My own position--which endorses both capital punishment and just war--is based primarily on the Christian worldview, which is the "seamless garment" that I fashion from Scripture to inform my politics.
To begin a justification of capital punishment from a Christian standpoint we must begin at the beginning with the creation of the world and the fall of man. After man's fall and his exile from Eden, God began to put in place a number of safeguards to keep mankind from destroying himself in his fallenness. While it is true that man is not all corrupt, and is still the image-bearer of God, this in itself is not enough to prevent utter collapse of society. The first safeguard instituted was death; without it, we would live forever in utter misery. Although also (and primarily) a punishment and a curse that is rightfully wept over by Christ at Lazarus' tomb, it fulfills a positive purpose in the drama of history. The second safeguard is clothing, to guard against sexual lust. Although Adam and Eve made their own (inadequate) clothes to hide their shame, God in his mercy provided them with clothes of skin that both reinforced the shame and mitigated it by providing a decent covering. These two mitigations were in place before the flood, but were obviously inadequate because mankind's sin increased until God was grieved that he had made them and resolved to destroy all mankind except Noah. After the flood, several more mitigations were put in place. Animals became fearful of man, thus reinforcing the hierarchy of creation, and different languages were created to estrange men from one another. The last mitigation is perhaps the strangest one when considered as a mercy, because it resulted in racism and misunderstanding between cultures. Yet it is a mercy, for it prevents mankind from unifying and using their incredible power to oppose God, as would certainly happen if mankind were to be unified. Finally, the mitigation of capital punishment was instituted after the flood to impress upon mankind the value of human life. Fallen man easily forgets that he is made in the image of God, and so capital punishment reminds him of this. As well, it is just: a life for a life. If done by the proper authority, namely the government, capital punishment reinforces the value of human life and satisfies justice. The mitigations of natural death, clothing, animal fear of man, tensions between ethnicities, and capital punishment were put in place to preserve mankind until God's plan is completed and the new heaven and new earth come into being replacing the old universe.
So how does this theological reasoning result in a secular political position? After all, most people don't believe in the story that has been sketched out above. One certainly couldn't use this outline as a political argument in the public sphere. But it reinforces something that resonates with all people: that a murderer deserves to die. The feeling that someone should get their just deserts is strong in all of us, and is not a bad feeling in and of itself. It can break out into feelings and actions of revenge, which is sin, or it can be a positive in creating a just government. For me, however, the theological reason is the one that tips my own position from opposing the death penalty to supporting it. Based on secular reasoning, the arguments for and against capital punishment are, in my opinion, balanced: capital punishment results in justice being done, but it also has little deterrent value; it satisfies the relatives and friends of the victims, but removes all possibility of rehabilitation and restoration of the offender; there is a possibility of a mistake being made and an innocent man being executed, but such mistakes are quite rare and can be reduced through better systems and DNA evidence, among other advances. Now, using this logic I would come out opposed to the Death Penalty, narrowly: no justice system is perfect, so no matter how good you get the system innocent men will still occasionally die. However, because it is mandated in scripture as a just act of retribution and as a mitigation of mankind's evil, I support it.

This isn't the complete story: the only argument above against Capital Punishment that moves me is the mistake argument; the others are either irrelevant to my understanding of justice or outweighed by other considerations, such as a murderer losing his right to live in society by committing a crime that strikes at the base of it. However, suffice it to say that the scriptural mandate for capital punishment tips the scales in favour of the death penalty.