Much like abortion, discussions – sometimes heated, circulating around the death penalty, have been with us for a very long time. Michigan was the first state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes except treason. This was in 1846 – Rhode Island and Wisconsin followed in short order for all crimes; but there was really never a lot of discussion about these States’ decisions.
Ban consideration began to gain momentum in the early 20th century and by the 1950’s, the number of executions had fallen off dramatically, from over 1200 in the 1940’s, to 715 in the 1950’s and finally to only191 in the 1960’s and early 70’s. This decline reflected a conglomeration of passionate ideas and ideologies, platformed not only on religious but on moral and judicial grounds as well. It also didn’t hurt that many countries around the world were also doing away with State sanctioned executions.
I think everyone has an opinion on the death penalty. Essentially, it’s 1 of 3 possible choices – a) the death penalty is good and should continue in place; b) the death penalty is bad and should be abolished; c) no interest what so ever – either way is fine. I think choice (c) is in the minority. The original and basic premise for the death penalty is simply – If you take the life of another human being, then you should be deprived of yours – given due process, of course. This is not complicated and it actually makes sense. And I think but with few exceptions, most people would agree that if you (whomever) deprived someone of their life, then you should also be deprived of yours. However, this relatively simple concept morphed into something so complicated that most people have simply given up.
There have been several exceptions put forth over the years that stipulate why, in this case - albeit that someone was killed, the killer should not be put to death – couple of examples:
However, here’s where the concept derails and unfortunately, politics and bigotry – and the latter isn’t just racial, play a large part in creating the mess we have today.
For starters, we have no uniformity and something as significant as executing a person for a crime, should be rigorously boundered in very precise language – clearly stating what is and is not allowed. Each state has its own agenda, driven in large part by geography and population mix - for example, in the South with a large percentage of blacks, executions – legal or otherwise were commonplace. Before a certain point in time, rape was not a crime punishable by death, however, as white (men) became more fearful that “their” women would be raped by these (you choose the expletive) – rape suddenly became a crime punishable by execution. Variations of the laws among the States were so wide, there was essentially no common ground. Execute/don’t execute was not even the privy of the State, as all too often it was a decision made within the judicial system of a county.
Secondly, the judicial system – created to be the bastion of fairness and equality for our nation, was in reality a platform for exacting grudges. So, law enforcement officials, the legal arena and those with a lot of money could concoct charges against a particular person and drive it through the court system for a conviction. We all know this to be true and even worse, we have accepted it as, well – that’s how it is. All except for executions. The number of innocent people that have been put to death by execution in the USA will never be known but we do have a sense of how many people scheduled for death have been found innocent, due to new evidence and in unearthing this new evidence we come face to face with judicial corruption at all levels.
My perspective is that the death penalty serves no purpose other than to take away from a person, that which he/she took from someone else. It’s that simple. It is not/should not be used as a deterrent to crime. And in order to make sure that we NEVER err on the side of putting an innocent person to death, the death penalty can/should only be available in – the term is, “smoking gun” cases. Serial killers and others, convicted, not on circumstantial positioning but on clear hard evidence gathered and presented. That person should be relieved of his/her life. Now, many death penalty proponents will ague that he/she should suffer as he made his victims suffer; and while there’s a lot of emotional energy for that , I say NO. the State is not in the business of exacting vengeance. The State is doing what is best for society and ridding society of this person type, is the correct thing to do. To have that person languish in prison for the remainder of his life and at a phenomenal cost to tax payers is, for me, a travesty if justice.
Sadly, we are light years away from ever getting to this point. I simply cannot see a time, now or in the future when we, as a people – a nation, can/will put aside our person feelings, whether it be piety or punishment, and craft a set of rules that will solve our execution dilemma. And a final thought, I think it all too often does a disservice to the victims and to the families, especially when the individual died under horrific circumstances.
I think everyone has an opinion on the death penalty. Essentially, it’s 1 of 3 possible choices – a) the death penalty is good and should continue in place; b) the death penalty is bad and should be abolished; c) no interest what so ever – either way is fine. I think choice (c) is in the minority. The original and basic premise for the death penalty is simply – If you take the life of another human being, then you should be deprived of yours – given due process, of course. This is not complicated and it actually makes sense. And I think but with few exceptions, most people would agree that if you (whomever) deprived someone of their life, then you should also be deprived of yours. However, this relatively simple concept morphed into something so complicated that most people have simply given up.
There have been several exceptions put forth over the years that stipulate why, in this case - albeit that someone was killed, the killer should not be put to death – couple of examples:
- The killer was not of sound mind ( to be determined what that means)
- The killer was of sound mind but was enraged – spontaneous act, if you will.
- The death was an accident, as in an automobile accident.
However, here’s where the concept derails and unfortunately, politics and bigotry – and the latter isn’t just racial, play a large part in creating the mess we have today.
For starters, we have no uniformity and something as significant as executing a person for a crime, should be rigorously boundered in very precise language – clearly stating what is and is not allowed. Each state has its own agenda, driven in large part by geography and population mix - for example, in the South with a large percentage of blacks, executions – legal or otherwise were commonplace. Before a certain point in time, rape was not a crime punishable by death, however, as white (men) became more fearful that “their” women would be raped by these (you choose the expletive) – rape suddenly became a crime punishable by execution. Variations of the laws among the States were so wide, there was essentially no common ground. Execute/don’t execute was not even the privy of the State, as all too often it was a decision made within the judicial system of a county.
Secondly, the judicial system – created to be the bastion of fairness and equality for our nation, was in reality a platform for exacting grudges. So, law enforcement officials, the legal arena and those with a lot of money could concoct charges against a particular person and drive it through the court system for a conviction. We all know this to be true and even worse, we have accepted it as, well – that’s how it is. All except for executions. The number of innocent people that have been put to death by execution in the USA will never be known but we do have a sense of how many people scheduled for death have been found innocent, due to new evidence and in unearthing this new evidence we come face to face with judicial corruption at all levels.
My perspective is that the death penalty serves no purpose other than to take away from a person, that which he/she took from someone else. It’s that simple. It is not/should not be used as a deterrent to crime. And in order to make sure that we NEVER err on the side of putting an innocent person to death, the death penalty can/should only be available in – the term is, “smoking gun” cases. Serial killers and others, convicted, not on circumstantial positioning but on clear hard evidence gathered and presented. That person should be relieved of his/her life. Now, many death penalty proponents will ague that he/she should suffer as he made his victims suffer; and while there’s a lot of emotional energy for that , I say NO. the State is not in the business of exacting vengeance. The State is doing what is best for society and ridding society of this person type, is the correct thing to do. To have that person languish in prison for the remainder of his life and at a phenomenal cost to tax payers is, for me, a travesty if justice.
Sadly, we are light years away from ever getting to this point. I simply cannot see a time, now or in the future when we, as a people – a nation, can/will put aside our person feelings, whether it be piety or punishment, and craft a set of rules that will solve our execution dilemma. And a final thought, I think it all too often does a disservice to the victims and to the families, especially when the individual died under horrific circumstances.
RSS Feed