|
Capital Punishment—A
Moral Dilemma?
Ted Bundy. David Berkowitz. Jeffery Dahmer. Charles Manson.
Names that have achieved household status for infamy, ruthlessness, and
bloodlust. I think it's safe to say that no one would want any of these
men as a nextdoor neighbor. I know I certainly wouldn't. Yet there
is still a debate over whether or not capital punishment should be enacted for
such offenders in all 50 states. Of the four men mentioned above, only Ted
Bundy has met with justice in the electric chair. Meanwhile, what kind of
consolation is being awarded to the families of the slain victims of the
remaining three murderers? Many of these bereaved people not only have to
live with the knowledge that their loved ones' killers are still alive and not
suffering nearly as much as the victims whose lives they've claimed, but now
they also have to support them with their tax dollars. It has been
estimated that it costs in excess of $75,000 annually to support each prisoner,
but when they are paroled they are usually more corrupt than when they were
admitted. This is simply unacceptable. Now I'm not suggesting that
all convicts should be executed or all prisons abolished, but it's insanity to
expect the honest working man to continue to shoulder the burden of those who,
given the chance, would pistol-whip him and take his money. Prisons give
low-lives a free, albeit confined, ride. A criminal very often thrives in
prison and learns how to be a better criminal, not a better citizen, so when he
is finally discharged and is unable to cope with civilized life he soon reverts
back to his old lifestyle only to be arrested and have the cycle begin again. In
short, prisons don't benefit prisoners or tax payers. Today's prison
system treats the symptoms, not the causes.
I believe prisons should be made
self-sufficient, so as to remove the burden from tax-payers. Prison
populations should be strictly segregated between the types of criminals in each
section or cell block. For example: Those convicted of armed robbery (or
violent criminals) should be in a different cell block than pick-pockets and
con-men (or non-violent criminals), so that the traits of the more corrupt
criminal won't rub off on the less corrupt criminal and hinder the latter's
rehabilitation. All inmates should be forced to put in a full day of hard
labor in service to the community which he has offended. All prisoners
should undergo intensive therapy and training to prepare them for reintegration
with society once they are paroled. Having learned a trade and
"rehabilitated," a program should be set up whereby the individual can secure
proper employment immediately upon dismissal.
This would give inmates a chance to
start over with a clean slate that the prison system doesn't offer presently.
However, there are circumstances which call for harsher punishments.
Rehabilitation of criminals has often been deemed impossible, and in may cases,
this would appear to be true. Repeat offenders may require longer
sentences and more intensive therapy. In the case of the serial killer,
therapy would probably be useless and the suggestion of rehabilitation absurd.
For these criminals, the only law which should apply is Lex Talionis—the
law of retribution. "Retribution is not to be confused with a narrow
concept of revenge. Retribution reflects society's determination to reject
the kind of horrible crimes that necessitate capital punishment; it reflects
society's determination simply not to tolerate these kinds of crimes." If
a person commits treason, or murders, rapes, or maims another person
intentionally he should go directly to the gas chamber with no prolonged wait on
death row for execution. The only problem most people see with this is that
there is, at the present time, a possibility in some cases that the state would
be sending an innocent man to his death. To see an innocent man suffer
death would be the ultimate miscarriage of justice, and I certainly wouldn't
want to see that. But the real problem isn't whether or not the death
penalty should be employed; it is a problem with how the courts presently
operate. There are way too many incompetent attorneys practicing law, and
justice would not be served if someone were put to death because of an
attorney's incompetence. Today's criminals are virtually given carte
blanche to rape, pillage, and murder. It has become too easy for the
defending attorney of an obviously guilty man to find loopholes to get him off
or keep the courts tied up for years with numerous appeals designed, supposedly,
for an individual's "civil rights."
Capital punishment should be enforced
in all 50 states equally. What good is a nation if it is divided in its
legal doctrines? The way the system is currently organized, a serial
killer can tip-toe from state to state, murdering as he pleases without fear of
execution so long as he stands clear of the states which enforce the death
penalty. This totally invalidates one of the strongest motives for having
a death penalty—deterrence. In order for capital punishment to be an
adequate deterrent, all the states must unite and have the same laws and enforce
them equally, otherwise we are not really a nation, but a nation divided—a
conglomeration of small countries.
[Note: This
was an essay I wrote in college for an essay writing workshop—March
25, 1993. I obviously had sources for this article but didn't document
them. I wish I had. I don't recall where I found the quote about
retribution, but I like it. As with "Atrocities," I wasn't concerned with
references, the focus of
the workshop being writing and style. The sources of my information were from various articles and
books I had read up to that time. Scores of books have been written on
this subject, so take it for what it is.]
Copyright © 2008 by Kevin Dunn
kbdunn@gmail.com
Last revised
April 19, 2008
|