Of Mules and Man

XH had an interesting post which i assume is a response to Voctir's post, where XH shares a similar expressed in this post of mine: that a person who is willing to forsake his morality to traffick drugs have also forsaken his/her humanity.

but i also believe that such a person can redeem himself/herself, which the death penalty does not allow this person to.

having said that, it's all about choices isn't it? a mule choose to gamble with his/her life, shouldn't he/she bear the consequences of that choice?

today's Today had an interesting perspective from Paul Seehan who writes for the Sydney Morning Herald who questioned the value that the Australian legal system places on human lives (cf. the relatively light sentances given to various perpertrators of crimes which led to deaths of people).

Voctir also claims that we are 'sure what is bad, evil and undesirable'. alas, that might not be the case. while there might be a right and wrong specific to the context and situation, most people won't be able to know which is which, right or wrong.

i agree with his view that the world is in a sorry state. and that it is 'better to eliminate and learn from our past mistakes'. alas, politics and governance is not, as yet, a scientific process.

which poses some other questions: is it possible for us to apply scientific method to governance, so that one day, we can manipulate human minds and societies as we do levers and electrons? Asimov, in his Foundation series, thought that it might be possible. could this be the case of science fiction being portentous?