Capital Punishment
Since a high-profile execution has made big headlines over the past couple of days, I think now is a good time to continue with my resolve to leave my views regarding various issues. I'll start with capital punishment.
I feel the chance for repentance should be afforded to all, and we should let God judge the souls of the guilty, while we do what we can to protect the public. In the same breath, however, I also feel that for those individuals who are either unrepentant or remain a threat to society, the death penalty is appropriate. I repeat, I am for the death penalty, but only in extreme cases. Few stories are more horrific than a convicted murderer or pedophile who gets out of prison only to rape and murder again. In that light, using strict punishments to avoid repeat offenders is a high priority on my political checklist. I am also frustrated, though, by the amount of taxpayer resources that is required to house, rehabilitate, and even execute criminals. It has been reported than executions are so much more costly than life sentences, due in part to the high legal costs associated with appeals and due process. For this, I have no suggestions or solutions because of my unfamiliarity to the system in general, but it remains a frustration.
Part of my opinion rests on the scriptural justifications for capital punishment, including the strict Law of Moses. If God had certain reasons to sanction it, than how can I be entirely against it? Some suggest that strict punishment doesn't deter crime. I'm not sold on that idea as I read more and more about Singapore and their strict and often public punishments effectively reducing graffiti and crime in general. No doubt many, if not most, violent crimes are committed out of rage with no regard for the consequences. Strict penalties would do little to stop them. It may make others think twice, though, and save countless victims. I'm for rehabilitation, but if I'm a legislator and I have to decide between using current budget funds to improve a corrections program or to feed the poor, I'm going to choose the latter. One might justifiably argue, though, that the two problems, poverty and crime, are inseparable. Yes, it is a "which comes first-the chicken or the egg?" problem, which reinforces my belief in religious principles solving social problems by focusing on strengthening families and instilling individual morals and ideals before problems start.





3 Comments:
The O.T. suggests (or was it required) that the victim (or heir) be the one to initiate punishment. Why shouldn't capital punishment be up to the victimes? (instead of the gov?)
Interesting point. I'd consider more victim input into criminal punishment, although I don't think it will ever be taken seriously in this country.
Having had a more than a few experiences with the judicial system, including as a juror on a murder case, I have mixed feelings: One, the system is flawed. Jury selection and the restrictions placed on the jury are flawed. In addition, too often, the side with the most money "buys" justice. Punishment is meted out unevenly and often unfairly, given the evidence or circumstances. Some people are wrongfully convicted, and, if the death sentence has been given, there is no greater tragedy than for the State to take an innocent life.
On the other hand, some crimes are so reprehensible, such a gross assault on humanity, and the facts so indisputable that execution is not only warranted, but demanded. The crime in these kinds of cases is that it takes 30-years to carry out the sentence rather than the 30-minutes it should have taken.
Post a Comment
<< Home