The comments on my last post have been pretty solidly "it's wrong to kill." That's certainly a view I respect. It's as far as a discussion with my grandmother once got on this subject. She was as tough as nails (more on her some other time), but she said it was wrong to kill. There was nothing more to discuss.
I'm just wondering who feels that it's wrong to kill, as opposed to being opposed to a review of testimony and evidence leading to a conscious decision to kill. My problem with the death penalty is that we're mulling over evidence and then making a decision to kill.
On the other hand, there are cases which, if the reports about them are true, cry out for the death of the criminal. For example, some guy who decides to rob a house and kill the parents and children so no one can turn him in. Or how about those guys who ordered a pizza and killed the deliveryman because they wanted to see what it was like to kill someone?
I'd still oppose the death penalty as part of a legal process, for a variety of reasons, but that's different from what would really be just. If I were present, witnessing these horrific acts in person, I don't think I'd have any qualms about such vicious criminals being killed. In fact, if I could stop them, I'd shoot them on the spot. I'm not talking about self-defense, although that would be what allowed me the legal right to intervene--the protection of myself and the others involved. I'm also not talking about or condoning vigilantes. That's no answer!
What I mean is that, in a world where we could know guilt to an absolute, moral certainty--in general, that's not the world we live in--some people really deserve to die. In that respect, maybe I'm in touch with my Jewish roots. In the Old Testament, we didn't turn the other cheek . . . but that's not the point, either. I'm not religious enough (or enough of a hypocrite!) to rest my beliefs on the bible when it suits me. It's just that some people's acts are so purely evil that it seems they've lost their right to draw breath on this earth.
Anyhow, I still oppose the death penalty, because one innocent person being put to death is too many. But I also hope many of the vicious criminals who truly deserve it find life in prison to be hell on earth (essentially, what Andy says in the prior comments is his view). I also hope it's truly life in prison, so they can't get another chance to kill.
1 comment:
Here in The Netherlands there is a businessman on trial who supplied chemicals to the Iraqi government which were used in gas attacks on the Curds in Iraq.
It's the first ever criminal trail on earth on the accusation of genocide, outside a special court (like the Yugoslavian tribunal in The Hague).
The lawyers have tried to stop this trial, because they argue that the court in Baghdad where Sadam Hussein is on trial should be the court where these genocide accusations should be trialed.
This has been overuled, becaus The Netherlands prohibits to hand over a victim to a court (or a country) where a death sentence could be ruled.
Still this man is now on trial.
Is this wrong? The man looks to be a monster, he delivered the chemicals while he knew it would be used in chemical warfare (as the accusation is formulated), out of greed. I haven't got a clue what the maximum sentence can be, but is this wrong?
Post a Comment