|
I have opinions on many things, but there's one subject that puzzles me. Although nearly everyone seems to have an opinion on it, I refuse to have one.
This subject is a grave one: The death penalty.
It has been abolished in every European country, but is quite normal in Asia and the USA. Is it just a cultural difference? I can appreciate the reasoning of both sides.
Those against the death penalty refer to the value of a human life. Who are we do decide who lives and who dies? And, from a religious point of view; Did the commandments of Mozes not include 'thou shalt not kill'? For life is a gift from heaven and only God is allowed to take it. I supose this is also the reason why all Abrahamic religions are opposed to suicide. A human should not kill a human.
Another argument I support is that if someone is innocent, but still convicted and killed, the damage done can never be repaired. Such injustice is unforgivable for the dead cannot be raised.
Thirdly. Who is going to perform the executions? Can we condem someone to the sinister job of being a hangman? There are probably lunatics enough who would enjoy chopping off heads and I supose that in some cases even otherwise normal people could be furious enough to do so, but shouldn't the government protect such people against themselves? For although there would be people applying for such a job, that does not mean their conscience would not eventually destroy them.
On the other hand, there are the arguments in favour of the death penalty. If someone kills an innocent, and is himself spared, does that not show that the government values the live of the murderer over that of his victim? And if a killer is allowed to leave prison after say 20 years, and kills another innocent, isn't the government then guilty of that person's death?
In such a case a government which does not support the death penalty is worse than one which does, for it is responsible for killing innocents.
Of course locking away someone for a lifetime would be an alternative, but in no Western European country people are locked away for a lifetime. A life sentence usually means 20 or 30 years...
And even if governments would be able to keep someone in prison for a lifetime, would that not in fact be more inhumane than killing him quickly?
It's a collision between humaneness and justice. It is humane towards the offender, his family and the executioner to oppose the death penalty. Yet it would be injustice to value the life of a murderer over that of an innocent. I cannot form an opinion on this matter. It is a human right to live, but when someone acts like a beast, does he still deserve human rights? What is worth more, the life of an individual, however evil, or the safety of society? What is worse, killing an innocent by mistake, or sparing a murderer?
What is justice, and what is just? I don't know...
|
Written by Witzl (1585 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | I have a tough time with this one too, Fledermaus. I'm against it for many of the arguments you have given; in the States you are far more likely to be executed if you are black, and especially if you are a poor black (look at O.J.). There is no way that we have a fair system, so the fact that we still use the death penalty seems a shameful breach of justice and human rights.
All in all, I am just glad I don't have to be the one who makes these laws. I still vote (absentee ballot) and hope I am doing the right thing. But this is not an easy issue to come to terms with and I envy people who are so sure about what is right and what is wrong. |
Written by Fledermaus (3448 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | Thanks for your comment Witzl.
It's a difficult matter and I'm sure that judges in countries that do have the death penalty are having a hard time making decisions. Yet on the other hand I can imagine judges in Europe sometimes being frustrated too, because of the limits to the penalties they can give.
It certainly makes me respect judges... | My concern ........
Written by Bagheera (683 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | .... is that a raving nutter of a right-wing extremist such as Jean Marie le Pen just might persuade enough French voters to elect him on a promise of reinstating the death penalty, along with a TOTAL block on immigration AND a massive cut in Income Tax.
Nobody beklieved Hitler could get himself elected in the 'Thirties, until it happened ..... and let's not forget that the bully boys of the BNP have been gaining ground in the UK .........
Your piece is well thought out, Fledermaus, and something we all need to think about. Thinking, however, is only going to be of any practical use if it leads to effective ACTION. |
Written by Bottleblondesurfer (3445 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | An interesting and well expressed piece. I do think that it something we are obliged to take a side on in a democracy. I am opposed to it completely for many reasons but mainly because it is ritual murder, the most dehumanizing of all and as a deterrent is totally ineffective. I think is was Spinoza who said "Distrust all in whom the urge to punish is strong" I'm not saying punishment is wrong but the desire to do it is suspect.
To execute someone is an admission of defeat.
I'm glad you raised the point.
J |
Written by anorwegianwood (278 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | | Very thought-provoking and well-written. I am personally completely against the death penalty. It it not only hypocritical (punishing murder with murder to demonstrate how wrong murder is), but it is so often used injustly. A great many people executed for their crimes were most likely mentally ill; some have even been mildly retarded. Worst of all, there doesn't seem to be much promise of a change anytime soon in the US. Look at who we chose for a president. Twice. (I wasn't of voting age at the time, so I take NO responsibility...) |
Written by Tusk (53 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | Fantasticly provoking peice.
The government idea that "20 years is a life sentance" is an oxymoron. | Hi Fledermaus
Written by jean.day (2326 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | You do a good job of giving both points of view.
I am firmly on the side that says capitol punishment is wrong. But I also think murderers should not be let out after 20 years. |
Written by Fledermaus (3448 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | Thanks everyone.
It's a subject that many people seem to have very strong opinions about. And they probably should, for life and death are no light matters... It was strange when they for instance showed Saddam on TV. He used to be a cruel dictator, who killed thousands, but when they led him to his death he was just a scared old man... |
Written by Phil (6836 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | Completely gainst it because I want to live in a civilised country and a civilised world. Killing people does add to the sum of human compassion, it merely gives an easy solution to those who see things in black and white. Twenty years locked up does not seem enough for taking the life of another, but by killing anyone, life is devalued.
Having said all that, I can imagine circumstances, particularly involving my children, when I could be literally driven to murder, at least on the spur of the moment. These things are never simple. Looked at theoretically and dispassionately it's pretty easy to respect life - anyones; but if you put yourself in the shoes of victim's relatives, it is also easy to understand the desire for a painful and prolonged death for some offenders.
I suppose that's what government and the justice system do, at their best. They protect us from our darker urges and take a much less passionate view of things.
What a can of worms Fledermaus.
Phil. |
Written by Phil (6836 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | | Of course that should say: killing people does NOT add to the sum of human compassion. |
Written by Phil (6836 comments posted) 28th February 2007 | | Also a split infinitive! I'll have to start checking my posts. |
Written by Fledermaus (3448 comments posted) 1st March 2007 | Thanks Phil,
But I don't think the main argument in favour of the death penalty is vengeance. It's rather about fear (on both sides) and justice. Yet the problem is what is more frightening, and what is just? |
Written by Snodlander (507 comments posted) 4th March 2007 | I too am strongly opposed, not on religious grounds but on the wrongful conviction and humanity arguments. If it is wrong for an individual to kill, why is it OK for the state?
And on a pedantic note, in the states it is not unusual for someone to be given 200 years, effectively 'life'. |
Written by Fledermaus (3448 comments posted) 4th March 2007 | Thanks Snodlander.
In the US people are indeed imprissoned for a lifetime, but in Western Europe even people who get five life sentences are released after 20 years... | Very Interesting Topic
Written by beatricelouise (215 comments posted) 27th March 2008 | I, too am not sure what is right on the matter. Very thought provoking. But I do know that offenders are often repeat offenders.
Here in Canada, we have a pig farmer who killed 49 prostitutes and buried their remains on his pig farm. He admitted he was sorry he didn't kill the fiftieth. Just imagine!
|
Written by Fledermaus (3448 comments posted) 28th March 2008 | Thanks Beatricelouise.
It's a complicated matter I think. People have debated about it for ages. What is justice and what is injustice? What is the purpose of justice and what are the dangers?
What is interesting about the reactions above is that when in a poem I mentioned this BBC article people reacted differently. |
Only registered users can rate and write comments.
Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
Previous item
