Yuk!

Those strange reactionary Poles are talking about chemical castration for rapists.

Except that other very respectable places are thinking along similar lines. Even France.

Here is one of my core Theories.

Once upon a time, masses and leaders had roughly equivalent access to weaponry. OK, not every peasant could build and lug around a siege engine, or even owned a horse. But a crowd of people wielding sharpened sticks and basic swords would give a sizeable army something to think about. ‘The mob’ was a force in politics across Europe until very recently.

This low level balance of power had various consequences. One was that any given ruler had to win and keep the allegiance of powerful warlords who could muster similar weaponry to his. 

Another was that the authority of rulers did not run far. The likelihood of mobile criminals being caught was low. So rulers created spectacularly horrible punishments as an extra deterrent.

Scaphism, for example. Not to forget Impalement. Public executions in France went on well into the C20.

But gradually rulers came to have control over the heaviest weapons, and acquired other ways to keep the loathsome, unruly public in order. The likelihood of criminals being caught went up, and the severity of punishments came down.

Hence modern Liberalism, with its positivistic rationalist attitude to crime and punishment and to cause and effect and ‘responsibility’ more widely. Apart from the fairly limited role played by juries, the state (in the UK) largely monopolises the use of serious weaponry and its application.

But maybe that is changing.

We are seeing a Democratisation of Firepower. Ordinary people can lay their hands on lethal equipment and knowledge which call into question the capacity of the state both to suppress dangerous people and to catch them.

Imagine if a group of ten or so terrorists well armed with AK47s, Semtex and other basic gangster kit decided to shoot up central London, killing everyone they could and trying to survive for as long as possible and even escape.

The force needed to kill and corner them would be massive. Is it even available? Much of the city could be seriously damaged in the ensuing battles, which might go on for days if the villains had planned properly. Hundreds of people could die. Some terrorists might even get away in the chaos and try again elsewhere.

In other words, the modern powerful state with all its power and supposed authority would be strained to the limit. But more than that. It could not call on the citizenry to rise up to attack the terrorists because the state has disarmed the citizenry.

This creates a dynamic and troublesome new political and moral dynamic. Under what authority does the state take away our rights to defend ourselves while not guaranteeing our safety in such extreme circumstances?

So could it be that we soon will pass a tipping-point and start to move back to a different form of relationship between rulers and ruled? If the state can not exert effective authority to deter and apprehend violent people – if its ‘reach’ starts to shrink – will more and more citizens themselves demand to take up part of that burden?

Will ‘mediaeval’ ideas of exemplary and unpleasant public punishments to deter people (which are still alive and well in many parts of the world) start to come back into fashion in Europe too?  

A disturbing prospect.

In the uncertain decades to come, is it so unrealistic?

And where does ‘chemical castration’ fit in?