Last Tuesday, I invited my audience to respond to me regarding the death penalty. I believe the response set a new record in regards to how many different comments I received.
So, after parsing through the comments and considering everyone's arguments, I found my mind being changed. See, before I wrote Tuesday's post, I think I was more for the Death Penalty than I was against it. Now, I'm more against the Death Penalty than for it.
I don't think anyone should face the Death Penalty for a first time offense, period. I believe our jails should be centered around the rehabilitation of inmates. If jails are struggling to properly rehabilitate prisoners, then the money currently being used to administer the death penalty to first-time offenders should be redirected to improving rehabilitation efforts.
Now, I'm hesitant to completely abolish the Death Penalty in the face of repeat offenders. Imagine a man who goes to jail for murder, leaves prison a supposedly reformed man, and then murders someone else. If he fooled his captors into thinking he was rehabilitated, then couldn't he do so again?
In such an instance, many believe keeping that man in prison for life is a cruel and unusual punishment. Perhaps killing the man humanely would be more merciful than keeping him alive?
I propose that we give the convict options. If a repeat offender faces either life in prison or the death penalty, let him choose which punishment seems more cruel and unusual. Maybe such a person wouldn't mind spending his life in jail. Maybe he would just want to end things.
But what about the methods of execution? As alluded to in the Tuesday post, the five methods of execution in the United States are hanging, electric chair, gas chamber, firing squad, and lethal injection. Some of these methods are perceived to be more inhumane than others, and therefore the more humane ones are often preferred.
However, every single method of execution generally inflicts some sort of pain, even lethal injections, which include drugs that paralyze victims and therefore only mask the inmate's suffering. Let's be honest; if we're going to be administering the death penalty, we need to do so quickly, efficiently, and cheaply. We can't pretend like there's a 'humane' way to kill someone; killing people is killing people, no matter how little blood we see.
In summary, I believe prisoners need to be rehabilitated first. If they revert back to their old ways, then they need a punishment that will keep them from harming others. I balk at punishments that are more severe than the crime itself, and therefore only murderers (and their equivalents) should be given the option to choose between life in prison or the Death penalty. I believe that if a prisoner chooses the death penalty, they should not have to wait on a death row, but have their punishment administered quickly, as soon as possible. The prisoner should be able to change their mind on this matter at any time before the administration. The chosen method of execution should be cost-effective, regardless of how inhumane some may find it.
But what do you think? Do I have some good points, or am I off-base? Be sure to comment below!
This Week's Comments
So you consider allowing someone to remain in a prison for the rest of their life with no real "life" to speak of (while being a massive drain on public resources) to be morally superior to painless execution?
ReplyDeleteIf I was facing a life sentence and knew I was guilty, I would take the death penalty.
DeleteThat being said, Darryl Ward's link argued that keeping someone in jail for life is currently cheaper than actually going through with an execution, given the large costs of actually killing someone.
So, I guess I don't think keeping someone in jail as morally superior. Financially superior, yes, at least according to the arguments presented in the comments.