It's the fall that's gonna kill you
Execution raises ethical concerns - Crime & Punishment - MSNBC.com
Seems to me that these people aren't looking at this issue from the right angle when it comes to "cruel" and/or "unusual." Why is it that the United States walks lock-step with such countries as China and *most* Muslim countries when it comes to the death penalty? And we have the gall to criticize China on human rights violations? "More than 2,000 people were known to have been executed around the world last year, the vast majority of them in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, Amnesty International said Thursday."
I made the argument before that executing criminals serves no purpose except to MAYBE give the families of the victims closure. I think that having the impartial state do the dirty deed is rather pointless. How can a person really feel avenged if someone else pulls the trigger? Why not have the families push the button (or pull the lever, or what have you)? If it were me, I'd feel more satisfaction from the process doing it that way.
But then...maybe after a few families kill a few murderers, they'll start growing consciences and suddenly we Americans lose our taste for state-sanctioned revenge? We wouldn't want that, would we?
But seriously. I think that the death penalty would have more impact...REAL impact...if it were the families that did the executing. Why not? The state authorizes some shmuck with 12 weeks of training at a police academy (maybe) to pull a lever. He has NO stake or interest in a particular family. He's just doing his job. But if a mother did it... she, of course, DOES have a vested interest in her family. I think it would make the act more enduring, and maybe more of a deterrent.
If we are so dead-set on keeping the death penalty, may as well make it mean something.
If inmates were not fully sedated, they could experience an agonizing death, defense lawyers said. That could result in cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they said.
Seems to me that these people aren't looking at this issue from the right angle when it comes to "cruel" and/or "unusual." Why is it that the United States walks lock-step with such countries as China and *most* Muslim countries when it comes to the death penalty? And we have the gall to criticize China on human rights violations? "More than 2,000 people were known to have been executed around the world last year, the vast majority of them in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, Amnesty International said Thursday."
I made the argument before that executing criminals serves no purpose except to MAYBE give the families of the victims closure. I think that having the impartial state do the dirty deed is rather pointless. How can a person really feel avenged if someone else pulls the trigger? Why not have the families push the button (or pull the lever, or what have you)? If it were me, I'd feel more satisfaction from the process doing it that way.
But then...maybe after a few families kill a few murderers, they'll start growing consciences and suddenly we Americans lose our taste for state-sanctioned revenge? We wouldn't want that, would we?
But seriously. I think that the death penalty would have more impact...REAL impact...if it were the families that did the executing. Why not? The state authorizes some shmuck with 12 weeks of training at a police academy (maybe) to pull a lever. He has NO stake or interest in a particular family. He's just doing his job. But if a mother did it... she, of course, DOES have a vested interest in her family. I think it would make the act more enduring, and maybe more of a deterrent.
If we are so dead-set on keeping the death penalty, may as well make it mean something.
posted by xanadian at 8:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home