Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 25, 2006 0:37:46 GMT -5
Killing a killer
Does the death penalty bring justice?
The debate in the Alfonso Rodriguez case is down to life and death.
The United States Attorney's Office believes the path to justice is found
in killing this repeat criminal and sexual predator.
How exactly does killing someone bring justice? Ending the life of
Rodriguez doesn't give Dru or Rodriguez's other victims another chance at
it.
It's agreed that Rodriguez should never again be allowed within 100 feet
of another woman or child for the rest of his life.
However, the only legitimate reason for the U.S. to sentence Rodriguez to
death would be to guarantee that he could never harm another.
But if that is still possible with life in prison, I honestly cannot find
a benefit in ordering the death penalty.
As a member of the jury, can someone vote to end a man's life and go home
having done an ethical duty?
For weeks, the jury has been absorbed into every gross detail and
heartless act, all the while sitting across the room from the seemingly
unremorseful man who committed these crimes.
However, making a decision to put someone to death, based on emotions such
as anger and hatred, seems ignorant and unsupported. In fact, that's
exactly what causes most wrongdoings in the first place.
When resorting to the death penalty for justice, it becomes difficult to
see exactly who is being punished.
The chance of this sentence passing unanimously only faintly exists,
especially with recent testimonies from Rodriguez's sister, niece and
nephew.
He has only recently been deemed "a human being."
For the 1st time, emotion has been paired with the man, though the public
has never detected it.
The more the jury can relate to Rodriguez, the more likely he will avoid
fatality.
It's much easier on the conscience to order a rapist and murderer to
death, as opposed to an uncle who sends money to his sister for Christmas
gifts and prepares snacks for his nephew after school.
(source: The Spectrum, North Dakota State University)
Does the death penalty bring justice?
The debate in the Alfonso Rodriguez case is down to life and death.
The United States Attorney's Office believes the path to justice is found
in killing this repeat criminal and sexual predator.
How exactly does killing someone bring justice? Ending the life of
Rodriguez doesn't give Dru or Rodriguez's other victims another chance at
it.
It's agreed that Rodriguez should never again be allowed within 100 feet
of another woman or child for the rest of his life.
However, the only legitimate reason for the U.S. to sentence Rodriguez to
death would be to guarantee that he could never harm another.
But if that is still possible with life in prison, I honestly cannot find
a benefit in ordering the death penalty.
As a member of the jury, can someone vote to end a man's life and go home
having done an ethical duty?
For weeks, the jury has been absorbed into every gross detail and
heartless act, all the while sitting across the room from the seemingly
unremorseful man who committed these crimes.
However, making a decision to put someone to death, based on emotions such
as anger and hatred, seems ignorant and unsupported. In fact, that's
exactly what causes most wrongdoings in the first place.
When resorting to the death penalty for justice, it becomes difficult to
see exactly who is being punished.
The chance of this sentence passing unanimously only faintly exists,
especially with recent testimonies from Rodriguez's sister, niece and
nephew.
He has only recently been deemed "a human being."
For the 1st time, emotion has been paired with the man, though the public
has never detected it.
The more the jury can relate to Rodriguez, the more likely he will avoid
fatality.
It's much easier on the conscience to order a rapist and murderer to
death, as opposed to an uncle who sends money to his sister for Christmas
gifts and prepares snacks for his nephew after school.
(source: The Spectrum, North Dakota State University)