We have a context defined by justices who are prepared to release anybody willing to leave jail and by a do-good-class. These only see the point of view of the criminal-out-of-conviction and are blind to the pain of the victim. As long as this is the case, the tide of violence directed against society and its majority-sanctioned order, will be on the rise.

Not long ago, a modest piece by this writer that dealt with the treatment of terrorists appeared on this page (Life, Death, Justice and the Meaning of Words, 22 February). Additional developments in the analyzed case and also the many respondents, warrant an update. The more so since, beyond the story, the issue relates to a fundamental weakness of the advanced societies of our time. These happen to be under attack by their internal (leftist) and external (jihadist) enemies. Furthermore, the update makes sense if you share the view that these societies can only be defeated by their failure to (a) recognize the challenge and its purpose and (b) by refusing to use their means to retaliate according to the terms of the attack.

In the piece, the facts presented dealt with the Red Army Fraction’s terrorism (the attacks occurred in Western Germany while the logistical support came from the “German Democratic Republic” and the rest of the “Peace Camp”, such as RR in Hungary). The essay reacted to the release of a terrorist and the impending amnesty for another murderer, in order to comment on an issue related to the death penalty.

In lieu of death sentences, the multiple killers involved were serving several life terms. The release of these and other terrorists was used to approach the issue that is raised by those who wish to replace capital punishment with life sentences. In the ongoing debate, life terms are presented as the equivalent alternative to executions. While the general controversy surrounding capital punishment could be avoided, something dishonest embedded in the argumentation invoking equivalency could not be covered up. It had been alleged that, if words are to continue to have a meaning, then a life sentence – instead of capital punishment – suggests incarceration until the end of the convict’s natural life as a rule. The article used the releases to point out that in the realm of the practical application of life sentences, not “life” but only a 15-25-year term is meant by those who plead that capital punishment should be replaced with life sentences. That the voter might not consent if he is aware of the difference between what he is told and what is meant by a conspiratorial insinuation, hardly requires much imagination.

Besides the legitimate debate regarding what “life” means, any release, especially any early release, should depend on the convict’s likely intention to desist from repeating the acts for which he is being incarcerated. Who would think of letting go a pedophile that decorates his cell with pornographic pictures of minors? Those willing, in the name of misunderstood humanism, to let such a person loose are not to be judged by the favor to a detainee that is labeled as an “unfortunate”. Much rather the basis for judgment should be the foreseeable damage to be suffered by the future victims of the subject enjoying the generosity.

This is the point when briefing the reader about some of the “newest” becomes necessary. Brigitte Mohnhaupt’s release being decided and as such in the pipeline, the issue pending is the clemency of Christian Klar.On the 26th and 27th of February, small news items pertaining to this person appeared. Their gist follows. In an act that makes one doubt the common sense and mental sanity, but not the inclination of Klar, he sent on February 13th a message from jail to the “Rosa Luxemburg Conference.” In it, Klar expressed the hope that the defeat of “Capital”, a pre-condition of freeing the road for a new future, is imminent. Furthermore, he attacked the conspiracy of the “imperial alliance” in Europe that refuses the new division of profits. Therefore this (hard to define) entity has to have the social context in which it thrives converted into a pile of rubble. The message was read to the gathering by an ex PDS (Party of Democratic Socialist – the re-named Communists) parliamentarian who had also been the Communist-era president of a university.

The note which only gained publicity by accident has added to the general revulsion that greeted the actual and impending releases. So much so that by now even some Social Democrats express second thoughts in response to Klar’s advertised attitude. Under the impact of he evidence that Klar intends to continue his war, the (conservative) Minister of Justice of a German State suggested that, due to the danger to society, the amnesty should be reconsidered.

It is not of primary concern here whether Klar – who might not even serve a single one of his five terms until the earliest date at which, for normal killers, a parole is possible – will be released or not. It would seem that by making Klar a candidate for clemency, early release, parole, or whatever, anybody serving for any political crime is, given a bit more grey matter between his ears than that RAF-man appears to have, is unlikely to be detained for the duration of his sentence.

One of the wisest street-smart observations – and for that reason widely ignored – is that “there are no free lunches.” The silver medalist might be something like “what pays will be repeated, whatever brings a disadvantage will be avoided.” If this is true, then the following is of no surprise. We have a context defined by justices who are prepared to release anybody willing to leave jail and by a do-good-class. These only see the point of view of the criminal-out-of-conviction and are blind to the pain of the victim. As long as this is the case, the tide of violence directed against society and its majority-sanctioned order, will be on the rise. And one more thing! Being induced to commit acts of generosity in favor of the undeserving, more than just the recruitment of new “polit-criminals” will be facilitated. Should their supply from this source of leniency ebb, one will be able to fall back upon the reserves that are temporarily in custody.

Wisecracks aside, the Mohn-Klar ice-berg tip of terrorism does more than to shed light on some lack of candidness in the debate to preempt capital punishment by life sentences. Wherever one looks – the closing of borders to hostile and illegal immigrants posing as political refugees is a case in point – an image is confirmed. It is that the defense of our civilization is impacted upon by an element that is led by convictions that, if unchecked, amount to a death-wish for our way of life. If this is so then a question must be raised. For how long will this be allowed to continue and when will more of this self-destruction produce irreversible consequences?