NR: We Need the Death Penalty for White-Collar Criminals


When it is argued that the death-penalty is an absolutely legitimate, rational, and sensible way of responding to certain threats from crime (and the criminal themselves), many people of “enlightened” and “civilizing” pretensions actually agree.  But what about white-collar criminals? And corrupt politicians?

Here we find a deafening silence. But we, for our part, are even far more in favor of the death penalty for corrupt politicians than for murderers. After all, as any rational person knows, the corrupt kill indirectly many more than most overt murderers. By the same logic we should also defend the death penalty for the biggest tax-evaders.

It is necessary that we dispose of the Enlightenment mythologies if we want to confront in a correct way and give definitive solutions to Brazilian problems. Having a soft heart in times of crisis is extremely damaging.

First, the human personality is not absolutely plastic. Human beings are not puppets or puppets that can be transformed into absolutely anything by education, psychiatric therapies or remedies. There are immutable fundamental elements that create the personality and the tendencies of each human being, and that interact in a multifaceted way with the influences of the environment.

Secondly, the primary function of punishment is to restore a certain sense of “social harmony”, including in the consciousness of the masses, that is, in the perception that the masses have of the conditions of harmony and security of society.

And death, being the ultimate punishment and, evidently, preventing any kind of recurrence, carries a strong condemnation in extreme cases, and with few exceptions, provides the collective catharsis capable of pacifying the citizens’ minds and restoring harmony  – or, at least , the perception of harmony we might say parenthetically.

So let’s start with the death penalty for corrupt politicians. If any “enlightened” have doubts, let us put this question to be decided by the mechanisms of direct democracy, such as the plebiscite.

Nor should it be counter-argued by anyone who comes to raise legalistic and normative objections, that the death penalty could not be instituted in Brazil because of the constitutional prohibition of statutes allowing for the death penalty in peacetime.

- Advertisement -

There is no “statute” capable of resisting popular power, which is the true sovereign in legitimate democracies, and from which emanates the original constituent power. Legalists want the original constituent power (crystallized in the Constituent Assembly) to be merely historical, which ends with the creation of a Constitution.

But the creation of the Constitution does not extinguish the people, does not take away their sovereignty, so that, yes, the original constituent power is perpetually in the hands of the people. And if the people demand blood to atone for the offenses and injuries inflicted by those who plundered them and continue to plunder and rob, especially when those are their own leaders, good leaders must guide this popular anger and frame it within limits of reasonableness and legal certainty.

There is no contrary argument that it is possible to raise against the death penalty for corrupt politicians. Perhaps even those politicians who are elected on the basis of anti-corruption platforms should be prioritized, but prove themselves as corrupt as all others.

The best corrupt leader is a dead corrupt leader!No exceptions!



Published on: Feb 25, 2019 @ 11:02

Subscribe to our newsletter
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.