Post by Oriet on May 12, 2009 16:42:13 GMT -5
A justice system should be for the betterment of society and protection of innocents. As others have already shown, rehabilitation works better at reducing future crime than harsh punishment, and so benefits society and innocents more than dealing harsh punishment. Another thing to realize is that, as such a system should be to help protect innocents, that also includes those who are wrongly punished.
Sure the system isn't perfect, sure there are criminals that cannot be rehabilitated, but you never know until you try. Also, for the protection of innocents, we should ensure that punishments (just another variant of revenge), while being appropriate for the charges, are not so severe that recompense cannot be given to an innocent wrongly punished. Even if just for the protection of the right to life of innocents, the death penalty should be abolished, as it will never be 100% certain.
The death penalty is a premeditated taking of a life. If the person was innocent, that means they have been murdered. But who do we charge then with their murder? The state as a whole? The judge and jury who passed sentence? The prosecution? All of the above or some combination? If we're trying to make sure that innocents are protected, we must also ensure they are protected by the very system that claims to protect them.
Sure, the years spent in long prison sentences cannot be given back, but at least the wrongly committed have a future in which to have some semblance of life. One who is wrongly put to death does not have that. They are an innocent that can face no recompense, they are an aspect of the society who was in no way protected. They are one less productive member member of the society.
And if we're trying to reduce crime, the best way to do it is to prevent crime in the first place. This would then be ensuring that everyone has opportunity to get a decent education, that all jobs can provide enough income to live on. That on it's own would also reduce some of the motives for crime, and gives people other options.
And again for those who are for killing criminals, even if some innocents get killed: who then gets punished for the unjust murder of an innocent person given the death penalty?
[ETA]
Adding in some statics of the death penalty in the US, from Amnetsy USA:
Total number executed since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1977: 1,057
Number of innocents released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged: 123
This means that 11.64% of those on death row are likely innocent. Doesn't this strike anyone who's for the death penalty as too many innocents? Do you really think that killing one innocent to get nine criminals is justifiable?
Sure the system isn't perfect, sure there are criminals that cannot be rehabilitated, but you never know until you try. Also, for the protection of innocents, we should ensure that punishments (just another variant of revenge), while being appropriate for the charges, are not so severe that recompense cannot be given to an innocent wrongly punished. Even if just for the protection of the right to life of innocents, the death penalty should be abolished, as it will never be 100% certain.
The death penalty is a premeditated taking of a life. If the person was innocent, that means they have been murdered. But who do we charge then with their murder? The state as a whole? The judge and jury who passed sentence? The prosecution? All of the above or some combination? If we're trying to make sure that innocents are protected, we must also ensure they are protected by the very system that claims to protect them.
Sure, the years spent in long prison sentences cannot be given back, but at least the wrongly committed have a future in which to have some semblance of life. One who is wrongly put to death does not have that. They are an innocent that can face no recompense, they are an aspect of the society who was in no way protected. They are one less productive member member of the society.
And if we're trying to reduce crime, the best way to do it is to prevent crime in the first place. This would then be ensuring that everyone has opportunity to get a decent education, that all jobs can provide enough income to live on. That on it's own would also reduce some of the motives for crime, and gives people other options.
And again for those who are for killing criminals, even if some innocents get killed: who then gets punished for the unjust murder of an innocent person given the death penalty?
[ETA]
Adding in some statics of the death penalty in the US, from Amnetsy USA:
Total number executed since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1977: 1,057
Number of innocents released from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged: 123
This means that 11.64% of those on death row are likely innocent. Doesn't this strike anyone who's for the death penalty as too many innocents? Do you really think that killing one innocent to get nine criminals is justifiable?