I was struck by the story of Rais Bhuyian - a man who was blinded by Mark Stroman, who shot him (and killed his two friends) in the aftermath of 9/11. Rais has been campaigning for a reprieve for the murderer who is set to be executed today.
I think he has a strong case. Capital punishment is morally wrong - since when does two wrongs make a right? The death penalty belongs in the last century. We have moved on from our ancestors' barbaric principles of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. This is merely vengenance, not justice.
Of course, that is not to say our criminals should not be punished. The alternative is to toughen up sentencing laws and ensure that they are not given parole after a measley 10 years or so. This will serve the purpose of justice and what's more, serve as a detterrent. I know that many of the proponents of capital punishment promote it on the grounds that it serves to reduce crime in the long-run. This argument is at best unproved. The type of criminal that receives the death penalty will be serial murderers, rapists and terrorists, for example. These types of people are psychopaths - they are evidently not rational nor stable beings. Thus, a death penalty will not necessarily affect them. Instead, it would only deter criminals who commit pettier crime - and I'm sure even the most ardent believers of the death penalty do not sanction killing Jim who steals from the sweet shop. In this sense, therefore, capital punishment is ineffective.
So it's morally wrong and ineffective. To make matters worse, there is chance that innocent people will be killed. Our justice system is, and always will be, fallible. Mistakes and miscarriages of justices will happen. If the wrongly convicted criminal is serving a sentence in prison, they can be released if new evidence came to light. If the the wrongly convicted criminal is in a grave, they cannot be brought back life - no, as advanced as our technology is, we have not got that far (yet?) Any system that has the potential kill innocent people is a risk too far. Death to capital punishment.
I think he has a strong case. Capital punishment is morally wrong - since when does two wrongs make a right? The death penalty belongs in the last century. We have moved on from our ancestors' barbaric principles of an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. This is merely vengenance, not justice.
Of course, that is not to say our criminals should not be punished. The alternative is to toughen up sentencing laws and ensure that they are not given parole after a measley 10 years or so. This will serve the purpose of justice and what's more, serve as a detterrent. I know that many of the proponents of capital punishment promote it on the grounds that it serves to reduce crime in the long-run. This argument is at best unproved. The type of criminal that receives the death penalty will be serial murderers, rapists and terrorists, for example. These types of people are psychopaths - they are evidently not rational nor stable beings. Thus, a death penalty will not necessarily affect them. Instead, it would only deter criminals who commit pettier crime - and I'm sure even the most ardent believers of the death penalty do not sanction killing Jim who steals from the sweet shop. In this sense, therefore, capital punishment is ineffective.
So it's morally wrong and ineffective. To make matters worse, there is chance that innocent people will be killed. Our justice system is, and always will be, fallible. Mistakes and miscarriages of justices will happen. If the wrongly convicted criminal is serving a sentence in prison, they can be released if new evidence came to light. If the the wrongly convicted criminal is in a grave, they cannot be brought back life - no, as advanced as our technology is, we have not got that far (yet?) Any system that has the potential kill innocent people is a risk too far. Death to capital punishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment