Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 20, 2006 15:18:11 GMT -5
Death penalty fails to punish enough
Dear Editor: Let's face it, none of the following arguments against the
death penalty is likely to persuade one of the proponents to change his
mind: It's not a deterrent, the justice system is error-prone, it's too
slow and expensive, it unfairly targets minorities and the poor, 2 wrongs
don't make a right, and it contravenes the teachings of Christ. At the end
of the day, believers in capital punishment will echo state Sen. Al Lasee
when he says, "There are murders that take place that warrant the death
penalty."
Oddly, the reasons against the death penalty are so numerous and solid
that they all seem to add up to a crisis of excess. How do you fashion a
compelling argument that can actually erode the foundations of the
pertinacious sentiment that a vicious murderer deserves death?
The answer, I think, is to argue that the death penalty fails to
adequately punish the murderer. While the death penalty offers the
alluring prospect of an eye for an eye, it always fails miserably to
"settle the score." The unexpected, slow and painful death of the victim
remains perversely out of proportion to the much more humane execution of
the murderer.
Further, by executing the criminal, we require that he pay for his crime
with his life. The problem is that his life is obviously worth very
little. The murderer, at his death, has effectively bought the life of the
victim for a bargain-basement price.
The modest and achievable goal of keeping society safe through life
imprisonment, by contrast, is an implicit statement that, for the purposes
of criminal justice, there is no comparison between the life of a murderer
and that of his victim.
John Baird ---- Middleton
(source: Letter to the Editor, The Capital Times
Dear Editor: Let's face it, none of the following arguments against the
death penalty is likely to persuade one of the proponents to change his
mind: It's not a deterrent, the justice system is error-prone, it's too
slow and expensive, it unfairly targets minorities and the poor, 2 wrongs
don't make a right, and it contravenes the teachings of Christ. At the end
of the day, believers in capital punishment will echo state Sen. Al Lasee
when he says, "There are murders that take place that warrant the death
penalty."
Oddly, the reasons against the death penalty are so numerous and solid
that they all seem to add up to a crisis of excess. How do you fashion a
compelling argument that can actually erode the foundations of the
pertinacious sentiment that a vicious murderer deserves death?
The answer, I think, is to argue that the death penalty fails to
adequately punish the murderer. While the death penalty offers the
alluring prospect of an eye for an eye, it always fails miserably to
"settle the score." The unexpected, slow and painful death of the victim
remains perversely out of proportion to the much more humane execution of
the murderer.
Further, by executing the criminal, we require that he pay for his crime
with his life. The problem is that his life is obviously worth very
little. The murderer, at his death, has effectively bought the life of the
victim for a bargain-basement price.
The modest and achievable goal of keeping society safe through life
imprisonment, by contrast, is an implicit statement that, for the purposes
of criminal justice, there is no comparison between the life of a murderer
and that of his victim.
John Baird ---- Middleton
(source: Letter to the Editor, The Capital Times