This was an article from the "Washington Post."
The article discussed the decline of both murders and capital punishment in recent years.
The first thing the article reminded me of was the fact that less murder and other capital crime equals less capital punishment. It's always good to remember capital punishment wouldn't be necessary if we could reduce crime rates. That way more people are alive -- before AND after the crime. We should be working on crime prevention every step of the way.
If you haven't read it yet, you should read Ethan's post on capital punishment. Specifically, read his third argument.
Basically, it states that, morally, you can't deliver an absolute punishment (death is a pretty absolute punishment -- you can't do ANYTHING while you're dead) without being absolutely certain of guilt.
While systems like this have existed (cough-Nephites-cough), our country has never been able to create a system in which we are able to convict with one-hundred percent certainty. With regards to convictions that do not carry absolute punishment, it is reasonable to accept a certain degree of error. We try to minimize that degree, but we aren't perfect.
Let's say, for illustrative purposes, that we have 100 men accused of capital murder. Not necessarily guilty -- just accused. The trials commence, every one of them is found guilty under our current system, and every single one of them is sentenced to execution. Now, there is a chance that every single one of them is guilty, but there is also a chance that there were a handful, perhaps even one, that was wrongly convicted. Our system isn't absolute. It is quite probable that somewhere in the thousands of people our country has executed -- according to the article, 3,108 people remain on death row as of this year -- our system allowed for an innocent person to be executed. One innocent man executed is all you need to prove our system unjust.
Remember when I talked about a reasonable degree of error? When you are dealing with a person's life, the only acceptable degree of error is 0.
So why do we still let this system exist? In my opinion, it is because of a predominating irresponsible sentiment. What's more important? That your tax dollars go to something more important than paying for the prison cell of a murderer? Or that we don't allow for even one innocent person to be executed? I promise you that if you allow your apathy to cause you to forget that one person, you will pay for it. I like to call this philosophical phenomenon "moral plaque." It accumulates eventually. Essentially, every one of us has a hand in that innocent man's death. The government is by the people, after all.
Do I think it is acceptable to pay for the real murderers to have a place to sleep and eat the rest of their lives? If paying for their sustenance ensures that no innocent man will be unjustly executed, then yes, I do.
Comments are appreciated.
