|
I'm going to try and make a (I hope) well reasoned, non religious argument against the death penalty, or at least against the way it is imposed at the moment.
I think it's fair to say that the arguments for the penalty seem reasonable:
1) It's cheaper than locking someone up for the rest of their life
2) It provides a sense of closure and retaliation for the victim's loved ones
And while I might argue for rehabilitation, and believe that everyone has the ability to change, and become better people, I accept the fact that there will be those that it would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming to rehabilitate to a safe degree.
I bow to those who point out the dangers of an inaccurate system, and further, the ease with which a state can shift the seriousness of the crime that warrants the penalty if that penalty already exists (the thin wedge argument)
However, the thing that really makes me feel that the death penalty is wrong is the way it is carried out by the state. If the primary reason is to remove someone from society because of the harm they may have done to a victim's family, is it right to ask a government employee to perform the act of execution?
In firing squads, they used to mix a blank bullet in amongst the live ones, so that soldiers could take solace in the notion that their bullet was a harmless one. But what does the executioner have to soften his conscience? He must occasionally have a dread that just maybe he got the wrong man, or some other guilty feelings. Perhaps not, but I think it's a tough state that asks one of its citizens to perform these duties.
Should the victim's families get the opportunity to press the button? It kind of makes sense, there are those who feel that vengeance is something required, and for those people, perhaps they would feel better pulling a trigger, or performing the final injection. In some societies, the use of stoning allowed for a community to share the responsibility of execution among themselves collectively. While in some sharia law jurisdictions, those closest to the victim are asked to commit a retributive act in keeping with the original offense. This means that a husband may be asked to stab the killer of his wife the same number of times the killer did in the the original murder. In some ways this makes sense, and allows the victims families to choose how to punish or forgive those that trespassed against them - but it makes me feel uneasy somehow.
And yet, perhaps this is the best way to deal with the hurt - it does at least leave room for forgiveness.
My overall point is that I feel it is unfair for the state to perform our acts of vengeance for us - If we wish for revenge, we have the freewill to act it out for ourselves - Yes we may be punished for it, because society doesn't function on a system of revenge and vendetta. If the need remains, then perhaps it should be controlled rather than exaggerated, and it should remain personal, rather than something doled out vicariously and anonymously by the state.
|