Few things seem so clear: We ought not kill other people without a compelling reason to do so. <\/p>\n
Most of us agree with this; what divides us is the definition of a compelling reason. If a scary man who says he means to do you harm is coming at you with a gun or a knife, you might be justified in shooting him. You can defend yourself, your family, or another person. In wartime, soldiers kill on behalf of nations. Some wars need to be fought. <\/p>\n
But take a man from a cage, strap him to a gurney and pump him full of chemicals until his heart stops? That's unnecessary and unworthy of a sober nation. That is a retributive act, an attempt at cosmic balancing of accounts better left to higher authority. Society deserves better. <\/p>\n
I understand the other side well enough to argue for it. The death penalty exacts an ultimate, awesome price and respects the majesty of the moral order. Some crimes are so heinous that life in prison seems an inadequate punishment; there are some crimes that cannot be countenanced. Obliteration is a fair tariff for monstrous acts. <\/p>\n
The constitutionality of the death penalty is not in serious doubt; it is explicitly addressed in the Fifth Amendment that holds no person shall be \"deprived of life ... without due process of law.\" We've no legal impediment to execution, only moral qualms and pragmatic problems. <\/p>\n
If we could somehow ensure that it is genuinely reserved for the worst offenders, applied fairly and doesn't disproportionately affect the poor and powerless, maybe we can justify it. If it actually provides a measure of comfort to the families of victims or prevents other murders, we might consider it worth the costs. <\/p>\n
But it's doubtful it does any of these things. Our justice system is flawed; money buys a better class of defense. Innocent people have been convicted and executed in this country. Dozens have been exonerated while on death row. Politics cause trials to become theater. And prosecutors are often elected officials with an incentive to play to the crowd--to present themselves as fearless avengers of society. <\/p>\n
While no one can blame a grieving family for longing for the catharsis they imagine the death of a murderer might bring, there's evidence that it doesn't do that. A 2007 University of Minnesota study by anthropology and sociology professor Scott Vollum found only 17 percent of victims' families--styled as \"co-victims\"--said the execution of their loved one's killer brought them a degree of comfort, as opposed to 20 percent who said the execution didn't help at all. This isn't surprising since no one would suggest that they are made whole by the carrying out of the sentence. As one of Vollum's co-victims said, \"Healing is a process, not an event.\" <\/p>\n
As for the death penalty being a deterrent, there's little reason to believe murderers will be put off by the possibility of facing the ultimate punishment at some point in the future. (A 2008 study found that 88 percent of criminologists reject the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.) Most murders are committed out of desperation or in the heat of passion; those that are coolly contemplated involve many risks that are far more immediate than being caught and tried and sentenced to death. <\/p>\n
While it's instructive to remember murder rates tend to be lower in places without the death penalty than in places with it, my real objection is that it's wrong kill people when you don't have to. And we don't have to kill incarcerated criminals. <\/p>\n
Sure, there's always a possibility that if you don't erase a person, that person might prove troublesome or dangerous in the future. Killing them ensures they won't commit any more crimes. <\/p>\n
And that also eliminates any possibility of them making future contributions to society. Yes, the possibility is remote, but we should also consider the effects of the death penalty on the innocent people--family, friends, attorneys and others--in the condemned's life. Last year sociologist Michael Radelet of the University of Colorado at Boulder compared \"the retributive effects\" of the death penalty on these folks and concluded \"that the death penalty's added punishment over [life without parole] often punishes the family just as much as the inmate, and after the execution the full brunt of the punishment falls on the family. This added impact disproportionately punishes women and children.\" <\/p>\n
This, he writes, undermines \"the principle that the criminal justice system punishes only the guilty and never the innocent. The death penalty affects everyone who knows, cares for, or works with the death row inmate.\" <\/p>\n
It affects all of us. It makes our world coarser, more brutal. <\/p>\n
There's no compelling reason to do it. <\/p>\n
pmartin@arkansasonline.com<\/a> <\/p>\n Read more at <\/p>\n http:\/\/www.blooddirtangels.com<\/a> <\/p>\n Editorial on 03\/19\/2017 <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Visit link: Few things seem so clear: We ought not kill other people without a compelling reason to do so. Most of us agree with this; what divides us is the definition of a compelling reason Continue reading
\nThere is no compelling reason for revenge - Arkansas Online<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"