But wouldn't any sensible human being would agree that murder is morally wrong. Isn't that all capital punishment is? If it's against the law for citizens to murder one anothen, then it should be the same for the government. One should not justify murder with murder. Amesty International states; "The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights."
You might as well call it a lawful pre-meditated murder if you wanna be technical. Capital punishment contradicts the basic human rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.
Everyone knows that our branches of government are flawed. The branch that decides the fate of a lot of men, the Judicial Branch, is the most flawed. Innocent and guilty men are put away everyday. Some are locked away for the rest of their lives. If a man is wrongly convicted of a crime, he can immediately be released. If a man is wrongly convicted of a crime and is put to death, then there's no bringing him back.
Pictured above is Troy Davis. He was convicted of murdering police officer Mark MacPhail back in 1989 in my hometown of Savannah, Georgia and is currently on death row. Many efforts have been made to keep him alive and appeal his death sentence. Whether he's innocent or not doesn't matter. It is a violation of the basic human rights to lawfully murder someone. See Mark MacPhail below:
Many may argue that one who commits murder has abandoned the principle of individual rights. Whether it is or not, there's no reward for killing an already imprisoned man but satisfaction. Justice shouldn't be served by removing someone. It should be served by promoting growth, happiness, and the welfare of society. Do you agree?
This is a very important topic. Many times people believe that in order to have justice served, to society, the death penalty needs to be involved. I personally feel that if they are put away for the rest of their lives, justice is absolutely served becuase now they have to sit in jail and suffer, thinking about the crime that they have committed and the life or lives they have destroyed.
ReplyDeleteOn the site, http://www.truthinjustice.org/inthenews.htm, there was a case involving a man named Earl Washington who spent almost 10 years in prison because of a wrongful conviction. He was sentenced to the death penalty, but got off because of DNA. What if he was unable to use his DNA to prove his innocence? He would have died an unlawful death because of what someone else did and his life would not be given back to him.
I soley agree with you when you said. " one should not justify murder with murder," this inlcludes the government as well. Murder is murder no matter who is dying and for what reason.
Capital punishment is a big deal, it is the center point of many arguments about how our jailing system works. This article sparked my intrest because the death penalty has been all over the news in the past few years. Although you provide a vast amount of evidence on why you think capital punishment is wrong, I have to respectfully disagree.
ReplyDeleteIn your article you mention Troy Davis and say that "he was convicted of murdering police officer Mark MacPhail". Capital punishment might be taking away the criminal's right to life, but what about the family the police officer left behind? This officer was just doing his job by protecting society and he was killed. If someone so heartless would kill a man for doing his job why should that man be allowed to continue to be apart of society? Even if he stays in jail for the rest of his life, what is to say he won't kill a fellow inmate?
Have you considered the case of Teresa Lewis? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/23/national/main6892741.shtml) She hired a hitman to kill her husband and step son, should she be allowed to be in society? People on the opposite side say that she wasn't smart enough to know that it was wrong. If that is the case would she think it was wrong to kill someone again? We need to send a message to the rest of society that we will not tolerate murder at all.
The raw images and controversial header prompted me to read your blog. The pictures went well with your argument; it made me feel bad for Mr. Davis in a certain way. What I couldn’t get from the back of my mind, though, was the possible pictures of the victims involved in other crimes. I believe in the death penalty, but only when it is done humanely. I agree with you on “The branch that decides the fate of a lot of men, the Judicial Branch, is the most flawed”, because I know some people who were set up in criminal acts. However, there is no way of letting people who are serial killers that have an overwhelming evidence that they did murder people to sit in prison to crochet. It is hard to judge whether or not a person should have their life taken away. I think to make your argument more justifiable, you should have touched upon the subject of people who are serial offenders, those that do crimes over and over and over again. Information on a list of some is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_were_executed. In that list is a man named Stephen Wayne Anderson who, while in jail for multiple accounts of robbery, killed another inmate. Since he was already in jail, what do you do with him now after this crime? What about people who are in jail for a life sentence who continue to murder or assault the officers and other inmates? Should the law just give them another life sentence?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that your topic can go into ways of execution and what the pros and cons of what is to be considered the most humane way. Our society would not be a blissful and prospering one if the death penalty was eliminated, because people who know the rules and consequences of laws will always continue to break them.
The death penalty caught my attention in this blog post because it is extremely debatable and one of the most arguable issues in America today. The death penalty should be allowed for various reasons but mostly for the human rights and defense of those who were killed. The ones who committed crimes obviously showed no compassion so why should the government? In a quote above, “…wouldn’t any sensible human being agree that murder is morally wrong?” our own morality is put into the forefront. Would we consider convicted murders sensible humans? Of course not! So why should they continue to live when criminals know for a fact what they did was morally wrong? In the above blog refers to capital punishment as “lawful pre-meditated murder.” Lawful being a key word, I find the term and action rather humane for some of the criminals who endure the procedure. For example the “Green River Killer” killed and disposed of 48 prostitutes in the Seattle, Washington region. http://www.insideprison.com/snapshot-serial-killers-in-prison.asp All 48 women showed signs of torture http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/predators/greenriver/index_1.html. Should people like himself be allowed to sit in jail while tax payers spend numerous amounts of money on his accommodations? He should be put to death as he had done so to 48 women. The humane death penalty does not serve justice to the victims of killer’s hands but the right to their own life is.
ReplyDeleteCapital punishment will continue to be a controversial topic with just as many advocates for it as there are opponents. Each side will point out reasons as to why they believe as such. I am more of an opponent of this law even though I am not 100 percent. I say this because there is evidence of innocent people being executed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases-1984-1993
This law has many flaws but can't be reversed once carried through.
There is a man named James Richardson who spent over 21 years in prison, with part of that on death row. He was freed after the real killer confessed. How will he get that time back? http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-cases-1984-1993
As long as there is some doubt, the case needs to be continued and the dealth penalty commuted to life.
This topic was greatly needed descussion upon our peers. I say this because i have been against capital punishment since the first time it was explained to me and i wanted to know if others feel the same. Honestly i believe capital punishment should not be an option for no one no matter how bad the crime was that they committed. I analyzed the situation both ways. I looked at the criminal as if they killed my relatives and also as if they were my relative and my conclusion was i wouldnt wish death upon no one. I would rather them stay in jail for the rest of their life rather than have them killed. i feel that if they were to be killed it would have to be by a relative of the victim and not by the govenment. Im not saying that the relatives should decide the death peanalty or even commit it, but if the criminal was to be killed at all it shouldnt be the governments decision.
ReplyDelete