RE: The Death Penalty - are you for or against it and why?
June 27, 2011 at 12:43 am
(This post was last modified: June 27, 2011 at 3:43 am by Judas BentHer.)
I freely admit that while I oppose the death penalty, in cases like that which I'm now watching in Florida; State vs. Casey Anthony, a capital case, I figure if it's in place already there are some people that deserve to be killed for their crimes.
Hypocrisy may be the retort in light of that opinion and I freely accept that judgment. However, given the personality of one Casey Anthony, in the above mentioned case, the greater punishment for her would be a sentence of life without parole. She'd then suffer every day knowing as she awoke to a new morning, that she had yet another day to live in a box, within a box, within high walls. Where the Florida sun and climate is obscured by being forever in custody of the State, while controlled by higher authorities in all manner of things all the days of her life, while having to fight to survive a potential death penalty applied by fellow inmates for her crime of infanticide, and that being a reminder of what she did and thus why she's there, would then carry with her all her days. And at less of a tax payer expense than what is afforded a sentence of death.
Emotion aside, I oppose the death penalty not because it's immoral to take a human life. Rather, because the system of criminal justice has been proven to be fallible in the exercise of justice. That DNA can exonerate an innocent who's spent decades in general population or was even on death row, lends evidence that the system is not perfect.
And while that's not all that surprising, taking a life as the ultimate sentence afforded within that system precludes any chance of appeal to the justice that would set an innocent free at trial, much less after sentencing. As such, killing an innocent is murder. While jailing an innocent is a civil law suit, because the wrongly accused is alive not only to see freedom from the injustice that incarcerated them after pursuit and success in appeals, but also sends the message that wrongful conviction is a life penalty that true justice can not tolerate and as such should not murder,in the event all is not right in the process of seeking prosecution.
Because murdering an innocent precludes any chance of finding the truth and holding those responsible for a wrongful conviction accountable. There is no appeal that releases the dead from their tomb.
And in a perfect world, wrongful convictions would be investigated just as diligently as initial prosecutions. And any and all who were responsible for that miscarriage of justice would be tried and sentenced to the same fate as their victim.
It is said of the criminal justice system in America; well, it isn't perfect but it's better than most countries and it's the best we have.
That may indeed be true. However, it is at our peril as a people if we benignly accept it is the best we can do.
(edit typo. spend/spent)
Hypocrisy may be the retort in light of that opinion and I freely accept that judgment. However, given the personality of one Casey Anthony, in the above mentioned case, the greater punishment for her would be a sentence of life without parole. She'd then suffer every day knowing as she awoke to a new morning, that she had yet another day to live in a box, within a box, within high walls. Where the Florida sun and climate is obscured by being forever in custody of the State, while controlled by higher authorities in all manner of things all the days of her life, while having to fight to survive a potential death penalty applied by fellow inmates for her crime of infanticide, and that being a reminder of what she did and thus why she's there, would then carry with her all her days. And at less of a tax payer expense than what is afforded a sentence of death.
Emotion aside, I oppose the death penalty not because it's immoral to take a human life. Rather, because the system of criminal justice has been proven to be fallible in the exercise of justice. That DNA can exonerate an innocent who's spent decades in general population or was even on death row, lends evidence that the system is not perfect.
And while that's not all that surprising, taking a life as the ultimate sentence afforded within that system precludes any chance of appeal to the justice that would set an innocent free at trial, much less after sentencing. As such, killing an innocent is murder. While jailing an innocent is a civil law suit, because the wrongly accused is alive not only to see freedom from the injustice that incarcerated them after pursuit and success in appeals, but also sends the message that wrongful conviction is a life penalty that true justice can not tolerate and as such should not murder,in the event all is not right in the process of seeking prosecution.
Because murdering an innocent precludes any chance of finding the truth and holding those responsible for a wrongful conviction accountable. There is no appeal that releases the dead from their tomb.
And in a perfect world, wrongful convictions would be investigated just as diligently as initial prosecutions. And any and all who were responsible for that miscarriage of justice would be tried and sentenced to the same fate as their victim.
It is said of the criminal justice system in America; well, it isn't perfect but it's better than most countries and it's the best we have.
That may indeed be true. However, it is at our peril as a people if we benignly accept it is the best we can do.
(edit typo. spend/spent)
"In life you can never be too kind or too fair; everyone you meet is carrying a heavy load. When you go through your day expressing kindness and courtesy to all you meet, you leave behind a feeling of warmth and good cheer, and you help alleviate the burdens everyone is struggling with."
Brian Tracy
Brian Tracy
