RE: The death penalty ..
November 7, 2014 at 5:25 am
(This post was last modified: November 7, 2014 at 5:26 am by abaris.)
I'm very much against capital punishment under any circumstances.
Now, let me explain that a little bit, since I think it warrants some detail. I perfectly understand victim's families, who want someone put to death for what they have done to their loved ones. If someone did something terrible to one of my relatives and friends, I probably would have no problem killing them personally and I would wish the worst on them.
But that's not how a legal system should work. A legal system has the obligation to protect society from perpetrators. It isn't obligated to carry out revenge killings. And that's what capital punishment ultimately is about. Studies have shown that it serves no other purposes. Deterrent is off the table of discussion as crime stats are showing.
Also, there's the margin of human error. There have been quite a number of death row inmates walking free years or decades after being convicted because new evidence came up. Or even because some prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself and surpressed evidence during trial.
I live inside the EU and compared to the USA our member states have a pretty liberal law. Even life sentences have limits. Sometimes 15 years, sometimes 20, sometimes 25. If you only read the letter of the law, that doesn't seem to be much of a punishment, especially in cases like Brejvik in Norway. American media, in their reporting, tends to stick to that letter, without mentioning or knowing that there is more to these laws. I've seen this mistake being made by liberal as well as conservative media. But in most countries, there are clauses, keeping violent offenders off the streets for good. It's called preventive custody. For us, living in Europe, it's a done deal that Brejvik never walks the streets again. He will be kept in custody after his sentence is up.
Now, let me explain that a little bit, since I think it warrants some detail. I perfectly understand victim's families, who want someone put to death for what they have done to their loved ones. If someone did something terrible to one of my relatives and friends, I probably would have no problem killing them personally and I would wish the worst on them.
But that's not how a legal system should work. A legal system has the obligation to protect society from perpetrators. It isn't obligated to carry out revenge killings. And that's what capital punishment ultimately is about. Studies have shown that it serves no other purposes. Deterrent is off the table of discussion as crime stats are showing.
Also, there's the margin of human error. There have been quite a number of death row inmates walking free years or decades after being convicted because new evidence came up. Or even because some prosecutor wanted to make a name for himself and surpressed evidence during trial.
I live inside the EU and compared to the USA our member states have a pretty liberal law. Even life sentences have limits. Sometimes 15 years, sometimes 20, sometimes 25. If you only read the letter of the law, that doesn't seem to be much of a punishment, especially in cases like Brejvik in Norway. American media, in their reporting, tends to stick to that letter, without mentioning or knowing that there is more to these laws. I've seen this mistake being made by liberal as well as conservative media. But in most countries, there are clauses, keeping violent offenders off the streets for good. It's called preventive custody. For us, living in Europe, it's a done deal that Brejvik never walks the streets again. He will be kept in custody after his sentence is up.