The readings this week consisted of two approaches to the death penalty in the United States. The first approach came from Stephen Nathanson, who argued that this penalty needs to be ended and "put to rest." According to Nathanson, "38 out of 50 states include death as a possible punishment" and that "public support has been very strong." He also states that there are two basic points to the death penalty, "1) That it is the best deterrent for murders and 2) That it is the only fitting punishment for justice for the crime of murder" (Nathanson 125). While I do agree that the death penalty is necessary in some cases, I don't agree with the second point Nathanson makes. I believe that giving a person the death penalty allows them to escape their problems in an easier way. Why let them die and not have to deal with the issue, instead of having them suffer in jail and live with their actions every day? Lastly, Nathanson brings up the issue of the old "eye for an eye" scenario from the Hammurabi code. According to the law, what one person does to another that is wrong, must happen to them as well. Nathanson brings up the scenario if a murderer killed an entire family. With the "eye for an eye" principle, the murderer's family must be killed as well. Agreeing with Nathanson, I believe this is a wrong form of justice, and it brings up moral problems. Nathanson states that "we must be able to separate the guilty from the innocent" and with the reliability of the U.S. justice system, that's not always possible, leading to complications with this "eye for an eye" principle.
The second approach comes from Louis Pojman, who argues that the death penalty is a necessary form of punishment in today's society. Pojman states that "the guilty deserve to be punished in proportion to the severity of their crime." I agree with this statement, because whatever punishment is given to a man who robs a convenience store should not be the same as someone who rapes and murders people. However, this doesn't allow us to punish with death. Pojman argues about "retribution" and while I do agree that people in today's society commit horrible acts and people look for justice and "retribution" for the crime, I do not believe that pursuing the death penalty is a form of justice at all. As I stated earlier, why do we end their lives so easily and allow the perpetrator to escape their crimes, when we could easily lock them up for the rest of their lives and have them suffer?
Death penalties are a form of punishment used far too much in our society. While many people see it as "justice" for those who were taken from this world, I believe that the penalty doesn't afford the people that "justice." The severity of their crimes cannot be taken lightly, but allowing these criminals to take the easy way out and be able to end their suffering at an earlier point is not justice at all. I believe that another form of punishment needs to be created, to create a form of justice for grieving families, and to create a way to make sure the criminal knows what he did was unjust.
I definitely find myself agreeing with your point on the fact that society is quick to point towards the use of the death penalties as a fit form of judgement. As you mentioned, the moment an inmate has died he has lost the ability to feel any regret or pain. At best, we gave the inmate a good scare at the end of his life. Some might argue that killing the inmate removes all possible futures and that is justice in itself. However, I would like to point out that a society that is satisfied taking away all possible outcomes of a person's life, including the possibility that the inmate might regret his actions and affect his morals, is somewhat concerning. Instead of nurturing a society that is bent on administrating retribution in the form of death, we should nurture a society by fixing the problems of murderers and even using them in a way that aids in society in some way shape or form.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that the death penalty is too easy of a way out for perpetrators of the most violent crimes in society. I think that when people commit violent crimes they should be used for the betterment of society. If someone commits a violent crime they should be sent to prison. Prisons should be giant sweatshops that people work in. people that get sent to prison now a day have too many freedoms they get food, and housing, as well as medication, and the government pays for them. We live in a civilized society; our society uses many different produced goods. There is no reason that the criminals should not be producing these goods for us. The people in prison should be fed and allowed to sleep 8 hours a night but beyond that they should be on their feet working all day. If people in prison work all day except for meals and sleep while in prison, then they will form a habit. Prisons are meant to break hardened criminals and turn them back into hard working Americans the best way to make somebody a hard worker is by working them hard. And if we did work prisoners on the inside, it would allow them to think about their wrongdoings and take up a skill so that they can do better.
ReplyDelete