Over at the Wall Street Journal, Brett Stephens asks a relevant question, "Why Don't We Hang Pirates Anymore?"

It's a safe bet, dear reader, that the title of this column has caused you to either (a) roll your eyes and wonder, What century do you think we're living in? or (b) scratch your head and ask, Yes, why don't we? Wherever you come down, the question defines a fault line in the civilized world's view about the latest encroachment of barbarism.

Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising.

...By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."

Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Today, by contrast, a Navy captain who takes captured pirates aboard his state-of-the-art warship will have a brig in which to keep them securely detained, and instantaneous communications through which he can obtain higher guidance and observe the rule of law.

Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above.

The problem Stephens describes is not simply limited to pirates, it's endemic across the Western world.

* In WW2, we simply lined up non-uniformed combatants against a wall and shot them. Today, we have huge debates over how tough we are on the poor dears at Gitmo.

* The Palestinians continually launch suicide bombers and rockets at the Israelis, even though the Israelis could wipe them off the face of the earth in a week if they so chose.

* In Britain, if someone breaks into your home and you stab him to death, you will be the one going to jail.

In other words, we like to pat ourselves on the back for being so civilized, but it's our very civilization that allows these threats to thrive.

If pirates knew the only thing they'd get as a reward for taking a ship would be a visit that night from a group of SEALS or SAS, who would mercilessly kill them all, piracy would drop off to nothing overnight.

If we simply lined up anybody we captured fighting against us without a uniform on and shot them, not only would it discourage terrorism, we wouldn't have these silly debates about how we should treat these foreign fighters and terrorists we capture.

If the Israelis responded to every suicide or rocket attack by carpet bombing a city block to the ground, it would produce thousands of Palestinian casualties -- but, the fighting would also end for good in a few weeks time.

If the Brits simply decided that a man's home is his castle and anybody who breaks in is in effect, forfeiting his right to continue to breathe if he's caught, the number of burglaries would plunge overnight.

Are those "barbaric" suggestions? Well, where the "civilized" approach is dysfunctional and the "barbaric" approach works, then it's wise to be "barbaric."