Alright… King Charles I can definitely be labeled as a toxic leader for several reasons. Claiming he is the voice of god due to his “divine right” to the throne is always a red flag when looking back in history; an indicator of a singleminded, narcissistic leader. However, I still have strong opinions against the justification of executions. Life is so precious and executions are so permanent. The only possible case where an execution could be arguably partially understandable is if everyone on the high court strongly and definitively believed it, they had opinions of an outside impartial party supported it, and the leader was an unethical killer. However, this was not the case in the execution of Charles I for several reasons. The decision was not strongly supported and the parliament had been corrupted.
In one of the articles, the “Rump Parliament” is defined as members of the parliament who had remained after the purge of moderates in 1648. Basically, all the “pro-Charles” voices were forcibly removed. This “purging” members of the parliament or any group of lawmakers and legislators are always concerning to me. After readnig about the role the parliament played in the undoing of Charles I it was concerning to me giving that the lead-up and final decition of the execution were “reluctant” and “shambolic”. This corruption and onesidedness of the Parliment bring me to think of the lack of diversity we have today in the Supreme Court Judges. (GO RBG). Differences of opinion can be challenging to deal with if there is an agenda that needs to be agreed on but that is exactly why that diversity needs to be present in desition making. The articles mention of high court justices dieing or killing themselves after the execution furthers my standing on the injustice of execution. Taking a life is traumatic and inhumane and when it is not 100% justified (which I believe it never is) it can take a huge emotional toll on the individuals who contributed to the decision to execute.
I feel that there is always another option. Exile the king to an isolated island, put him in jail, whatever! Murder is so permanent. Taking a life is hard and often never unjustified. If we kill a leader that is the end of their story, there is no way to learn from them, no possibility for change. I dooo understand the possibility that their strongest supporters could cause a mutiny or form a cult in honor of the leader which could be dangerous but not as unjust as murder.
I find it really interesting, and sadly true, the comparison you make to the Supreme Court today. I agree in the fact that there needs to be diversity of opinions in any group of people making a decision as important as executing the king. I think that fact that Cromwell forced out the members of parliament who wanted to continue the talks with Charles I is completely corrupt, which makes me think that the decision for his execution is not necessarily valid.
I agree to a certain extent o the issue of execution. I agree that life is precious and that taking someone’s life can leave you with intense trauma but I also think that some crimes are worth the execution. It all depends on the crime and the reasoning behind the crime. I also found it interesting how you compared the parliament to the Supreme Court Justices.
I like the point that you make here. It is dangerous to allow a homogenous group in ideology to decide someones fate to this extreme. With this logic I believe that there should be rules set it place to keep the Supreme Court neutral instead of allowing any side (liberal or conservative) to control too much of the votes. This is what leads to decision that in nature might not be “just”.