I have never agreed with execution but in the light of the Troy Davis case I wanted to look at the reality of capital punishment, find out if it actually works and if it can ever be justified. (If you want to find out about Troy's case see the 'Daily Updates' page)
.
In Britain I feel a growing wish for the reinstatement of capital punishment but can the killing of another human being ever be justified? The three elements of this are, is it morally correct, what if it goes wrong and does it work?
Morality
Capital punishment raises some very serious issues in relation to morality. To take a life is something that is extremely traumatic for the criminal, the family and the person who has to deliver the injection, shoot the gun or turn on the chair. Troy Davis' execution was postponed three times which was said to a be paramount to torture. So can execution ever be what we would call 'humane'? Isn't the concept of killing someone paradoxical to that of humaneness.
The argument that is always used to counter mine is that what people do is much worse then what they get. The act of taking a life makes them deserve to loose their own. I understand that what some individuals do is horrific and unacceptable but by taking their life does that not make the person who does that a murderer. What puts the state above the law?
It is very easy to condemn a criminal that has committed an atrocity to death but what if it was an 18 year old girl who killed her boyfriend? One act of stupidity then goes into a system that will destroy a life that has barely started.
What if it goes wrong?
However long and laborious our criminal justice system is, every so often someone slips through the net. Years later they get released with a large sum of money. This is not ideal in any way but at least it can be put right, if there was capital punishment no such correction could be made.
Troy Davis was convicted but the case against him was weak and now if it is proven that he was innocent it will be too late. If one wants a state of justice, capital punishment does not make sense on a purely practical basis.
Does it work?
Firstly, does it seem plausible as a deterrent. Would a murderer at the height of their rage stop and think about the consequences. The act of murder suggests a state of mind that does not care about what will happen and if they do then surely a hefty prison sentence would be just as effective.
Capital punishment is also said to be 'better value for money'. Why spend lots on keeping someone in prison for life when you could just kill them. I do not see how one could feel comfortable making the decision of life and death on purely economic grounds but even without this morality issue the argument does not hold any water. In the United States it costs more to execute someone then it does to imprison them due to the amount of appeals they are allowed. If the appeals were dropped and and the time on death row was shortened then it would make sense but would also make the system even more dubious then it already is.
In America the majority of states do serve the death penalty but 14 do not, this gives us the chance to look at one country and see if the death penalty has any real effect on murder rates. In states which still carry out executions the average murder rate per 100,000 people was 4.6 in 2010. In those who do not it was 2.9 showing a clear indication that it has no impact and may actually further brutalise the population. In England and Wales the murder rate per 100,000 was about 1.4 in 2009 compared to the 5.6 in America, this nullifies the argument that it acts as a deterrent.
Therefore, capital punishment seems impractical, immoral and simply doesn't work. I will finish with a quote by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, "To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, it is not justice."
Data from www.deathpenaltyinfo.org
and www.guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment