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.
I agree that it is probable that we have executed an innocent person under the death penalty and that in itself is deems the system unacceptable for me, but there are a few horrendous crimes committed where we KNOW the person charged is guilty. I think it okay that the death penalty is administered then, like the Aurora movie theater shooting in Colorado. I believe the death penalty to be a just sentence for such horrendous crimes. But if the system allows for an innocent person to die that is not acceptable. I think only if a person is sentenced the death penalty, their should be undeniable evidence that the person committed that crime.
ReplyDeleteI have never liked the idea of the death penalty because it seems so final. I like the image created of "moral plaque;" often we are blinded as a society by our desire for entertainment and intrigue and forget about the possibly innocent lives being irreversibly affected. I do, however, agree with what Nathan said about undeniable evidence in particularly horrific cases. The idea of supporting a system that could put an innocent man to death is appalling, and I think that the death penalty should only ever be a last resort, if it has to be used at all.
ReplyDeleteHey, it's me. I'll admit I'm a big supporter of capital punishment. I do know that it's hard to know for sure if someone's guilty, and sometimes the government gets it wrong. I agree with Nathan though. We should only execute if we know that they're guilty, and they have done multiple horrendous crimes. There are some acts that deserved to be absolutely punished. I know I feel more comfortable knowing that a serial killer isn't here anymore. You might think I'm a horrible person, but my belief is if you take lives, you lose the right to yours. I do believe that capital punishment shouldn't be taken lightly. It should require a lot of guilt and multiple murders by a person, but I do believe that capital punishment is necessary.
ReplyDeleteSorry if I sound like a terrible person, but I believe that every single murderer should be killed. Taking someone’s life destroys the right to yours. However, as you said, our system is not perfect, so my view is not exactly possible.
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I’m wrong, but when people are sentenced to death, there is usually some pretty good evidence. As you said though, it’s possible that one in a hundred may be innocent. Honestly that’s good enough for me. If I was convicted, and had the choice of living in prison for life with 99 other murders, or dying and taking them all with me, I would choose death.
This issue is tough for me to comment on, because I don't have a set-in-stone position. I do believe that for certain extreme crimes like murder, the death penalty is justified if we know someone is guilty. When you mentioned the possibility of one innocent person being killed, I really had to question my view (or lack thereof) on capital punishment. I don't think that convicting an innocent person of death is okay at all, but I also think that the death penalty is a just punishment for certain crimes. I don't know what the right solution is because these views conflict each other somewhat. I guess I would like to use the death penalty when we are confident of guilt (if that is possible).
DeleteNathan and Maddie -- I understand what you guys are saying. I do think about the Aurora shooting and how someone like that has to fit into all of this. The main problem with expediting the execution of killers like that is that, to do so, you have to make legal exceptions to the rules, exceptions that will eventually lead to the termination of the violator's life. The same problems that exist with a general system of Capital conviction exist within that set of exceptions. Eventually those exceptions will lead to the execution of innocent people. I know it's hard to imagine confusing guilt in a situation like the Aurora shooting, but even the eyewitnesses cannot be 100 percent certain of the shooter's guilt. It's extremely likely that the allegations are correct in this situation, but because we are definitively imperfect there is no possible way they know perfectly of his guilt. Do I think that the shooter is innocent? Absolutely not. Do I think that, eventually, there will be someone who is innocent that carries as much incriminating evidence as the Aurora shooter does? Yes, I do. Ultimately, sparing the life of the Aurora shooter will assist in sparing the life of that innocent man.
ReplyDeleteKasey -- I absolutely agree with you. I absolutely believe that if you take the life of a person you lose the right to yours. My point is that we can't be the ones to decide that level of guilt because we don't have the ability to do so perfectly, which is what the situation requires. I don't think you are a terrible person - like I said, I agree with you. However, I would rather stick every serial killer in a cell than risk executing an innocent person. I think what this issue requires is an elevated classifying system, which would help minimize the risk of wrongful conviction. Your idea about execution requiring multiple murders is an interesting one that I want to think about.
Kyle -- Like I said in my remarks to Kasey, I absolutely agree with you, and I don't think you are a terrible person. My objection to Capital Punishment isn't an objection to the punishment itself. I do think that certain crimes merit total consequence. My objection is to the imperfections of the system by which it is assigned. Like you said, our system is imperfect. You are absolutely correct in saying that in murder trials there is good evidence, sometimes even infinitesimally close to absolute (as in the Aurora shooting case), but if you can use a system to convict one person, it is available to convict others. We have to abolish any system that would lead to the unjust execution of someone who is innocent, which means forgoing the execution of other murderers, even people like the Aurora shooter. Like I said, I am not in objection to the punishment. If someone could construct a system in which we could convict murderers with a perfect confidence of their guilt, I would support it whole-heartedly. In regards to your comment about being willing to die if it meant the death of the other 99 killers, that is a personal decision. I don't think I would be quite as quick to volunteer my life for their execution, especially if there were other possible punishments. Regardless, it is unjust to impose that kind of sacrifice on someone other than yourself. If that person were to volunteer, that would be a different situation, but because there is really no way to do that, imposing that kind of sacrifice on someone else is unjust.
Jason -- I totally agree with you. My argument is that it is impossible to have perfect confidence in any kind of guilt. Absolute punishment requires absolute confidence, which is a confidence we cannot deliver.