| "A Proposal for Justice" |
| You wake up in the morning and go through your usual routine which consists of a shower, breakfast, and a few short chores. You leave the house and kiss your spouse goodbye as you head off to work. The day goes by as usual, and there is nothing that seems out of the ordinary. During lunch break, you phone your house and find that everything is as it should be. After work, you make your usual stop at the mailbox and, upon rifling through it, you stumble across a formal letter addressed to you, and requesting your participation in jury duty. It is a case in which, if the defendant is found guilty, the death penalty will be given as punishment. You now ask yourself: Can I find a person guilty of a crime if it means that they will be sentenced to death? Pondering this question, it gives further rise to a broader topic: Is the death penalty a form of homicide? The answer is a profound, yes. In this time of national crisis, the common judgment among the people is that the events of September 11th, 2001 were composed of senseless slaughtering of Americans. A similar connection can be made to the familiar practice of murder of America�s people by the hand of America itself. The death penalty is an accepted means of punishment placed upon those that have been deemed criminal by society. A criminal is one who consciously breaks the laws or rules of a society. The punishments for the breach of these laws are also determined by this �big brother� of the public. Throughout nearly the entire world at this time, the act of committing murder against another living human is considered the worst crime that can be committed. Even in religion there are words which express the rule regarding the death of another human. In the King James Version of the Holy Bible there was an incorrect translation of the sixth commandment; �thou shalt not kill� should have been interpreted as �thou shalt not murder.� This is far more specific and relates to the conscious killing of one human being by another. There is no asterisk to this law that certain circumstances are acceptable. If this is so, then how is it that there can be a lawful means of murder against a human being? Are we to believe that once one steps into the world of the criminal, then one has left behind his humanity and should no longer be looked on as a fellow creature? This is, of course, untrue. A person, no matter what horrible actions they have taken, is still, inside, a rational thinking creature with emotions that are only equal to what they are: a human. Therefore, the death penalty is the killing of one human by another, and is a form of homicide. Homicide can be premeditated, accidental, in self-defense, or in any other form that is thinkable of; the bottom line is that a human has killed another human. Thinking of a loved one, who has been brutally murdered by another, brings forth the emotion of revenge, yet in the opposite shoes the friends and family of the killer may then view the death penalty as murder against their own. Victims lose those close to them through no fault of their own, but the same can be said for the murderer�s kin. Arguments can be made back and forth about the validity of both claims; one side rings true, however. Everyone has a different way of viewing the world and all have their own beliefs about what is just. Those who argue in favor of the death penalty are concluding that it is a form of justice, yet an act of murder, by very definition, is unjust. It can be argued that the person who �pulls the lever� so to speak is merely doing their job. They are acting out of the order of some higher official and not for themselves, yet they are capable of making their own decisions and have control over their actions. There is a continuous trail that can be followed to everyone who was involved in the death of a criminal. They all had their hand in the death, but it is a punishment that they set forth, not merely an act of murder. Society sits down and actively produces a punishment consisting of: the means of death, the time this will occur, and other such matters. The action of planning out so particularly the death of another human being falls under, not only the category of homicide, but also premeditated murder. Supporters for the death penalty believe they are striving towards a safer society, one that is free from the murderous criminal, but they are actually aiding and abetting murder itself. They are supporting an injustice towards people and are blind to the fact of it. The law is what should become the deciding factor of this issue, but the law has problems of its own. The interpretation of what the law means is different for each individual. There is contradiction throughout law, however, regarding acceptable means of punishment. The intense doctrine, �an eye for an eye,� is expressive towards an equal punishment to the criminal who conducted an unlawful act; yet the words, �turn the other cheek,� echo through one�s mind. These morals that people hold inside themselves can usually not be changed. People are either for, or against, the death penalty. Those supporting the death penalty say that �the punishment should fit the crime,� while those opposing say more appropriately, �two wrongs do not make a right.� Supporters say that the sentence of death is more humane than life imprisonment, but the killing of a human being is not humane in any form. This is the way that the opposition views the issue. It goes back to the very definition of murder, which is a malicious action. One could say that the death penalty will end the circle of killing, but the opposite is true; the circle is merely continuing. This can be seen best in the important argument that arises regarding the possibility of innocent deaths. Recently, DNA evidence has shown us that innocent people have been executed for the crimes of others. It can therefore be determined that the death penalty is also an act of senseless murder. Juries are asked to find people guilty only if it is beyond a shadow of a doubt. Yet, how can anyone truly know if a person is innocent or guilty? No one can sentence another to death without doubting oneself, but it happens all the time. Michael Manville, a freelance writer with a background in economic development, states, �The death penalty has never been illegal in America and, despite recent controversy over its effectiveness, does not appear to be headed for extinction here anytime soon.� There are people being killed for no reason at all, except for the reason of placing blame on someone, and killing in the name of �justice.� Some claim that justice is being served by the law when the true criminal is brought forth and executed for the crimes committed. One could argue that since the acceptance of the death penalty is written in the laws of the society, then it is a duty that must be fulfilled. However, the existence of the death penalty in law is a direct violation of the eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which bans the use of �cruel and unusual punishment.� The killing of a person would no doubt fall into this category, and therefore, the death penalty is going against the Constitution and legalizing murder. Since the death penalty requires the hand of a human, it is a form of homicide. Those against the death penalty believe there should be no exception for an act of capital punishment that would further the killing of another. The death penalty is in actuality a form of injustice, and more specifically, murder. If a person commits murder, then how could the punishment of death applied upon the killer make things right again? It simply creates another murderer. It is clear that the punishment does fit the crime, in that, crime and punishment are one in the same; they are both homicide. The killing of another human being can have no relevance behind it; it is still an act of murder. If deemed acceptable by society, law, and even God himself, it is still only accepted, not justified. The death penalty is a complete contradictory action that is hypocritical to itself in saying that murder is lawful. When murder becomes lawful, then the original crime of murder committed is no longer unlawful. The death penalty represents the right to murder, and therefore goes against the very foundations that it was built upon. In our society this punishment cannot exist if we are to call ourselves rational creatures. Thinking reasonably, we see that �justified� murder is still murder and should not be allowed. Travel back to the mailbox, where you stood earlier, looking at the letter in your hand. You question your beliefs and yourself, as you wonder if you could become an accomplice in murder. You don�t believe that you could be the deciding factor in the fate of another�s life. Then you crumple up the letter, like so many others have done before, and you move on without taking action, while another gavel slams, and death is the sentence. Works Cited: Manville, Michael. �Death Becomes Us: Why Americans Support Capital Punishment.� Focus on the Death Penalty. September 13, 2000. September 20, 2001. <http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/2000/09/death>. �Stop the Killing Machine.� The Progressive. August, 2001. September 20, 2001. <http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1295/8_65/76697689/p1/article.jhtml?term=stop+ the+killing+machine>. |