A horrible crime made the headlines recently, and the death penalty has again come up as a topic of conversation. I have had different opinions on the issue in my lifetime. Up to the age of twenty-something, I supported the death penalty for murderers. Then I began to notice many problems related to the real-world implementation of the death penalty. The main problem is that murder suspects typically cannot afford adequate legal representation. The trial and sentencing tends to be a foregone conclusion. When rich men commit a crime, they often receive a lenient punishment, whether their crime was murder or not.
When I read the details about certain murders, my heart breaks, and my blood boils. I would be loathe to provide any assistance, legal or otherwise, to someone that committed a horribly violent crime against another person. That is why the death penalty is seldom discussed on my blog. I concede that the death penalty is not a perfect solution, but it may have a therapeutic effect upon surviving friends and family members. They at least will know that the murderer is not alive to boast about his deeds.
People think that the death penalty equates to being "tough on crime." However, in my estimation, life in prison is not more lenient than death. To never be free again, to never walk in the sunshine without being monitored, to be among other murderers and assorted scum--that seems to me a fate much worse than death. One positive aspect of the death penalty is that, in the United States at least, the implementation tends to be painless. Most of us can only hope for a painless death. Cancer or heart disease await, and they are not painless.
Like all things, the human implementation of the death penalty is not perfect. Mistakes happen. There are cases where an innocent man may be put to death for a crime he did not commit, although this is probably rare. An even more troubling scenario involves official corruption. Law enforcement officials may pervert the course of justice in order to cover up inconvenient details. Dead men tell no tales!
Perhaps the best answer lies in prevention, rather than punishment. If we can stop the birth of human beings that lack a conscience, then murder can be eliminated from the human family. If we can develop a social philosophy where each man respects the other like a brother, then violent crime can be eliminated. I believe it can happen, although we are far from achieving such a solution today. What is needed is more scientific knowledge about human growth and development.
I believe that much-maligned eugenics offers a potential solution to many ancient problems, such as crime, war, poverty, mental illness, and physical diseases. I do not know enough about science to describe the ways in which a successful eugenics program could be implemented, but I will say without hesitation that skin color is irrelevant. Eugenics received a setback from the racists of the 19th and 20th centuries, who made sweeping assumptions based upon pseudoscience. A new word needs to be coined in order to avoid comparisons to the horrible eugenics programs of the past. Right now, anyone speaking in favor of eugenics has to play defense, as I have, in order to avoid the charge of racism. Of course, any eugenics program would have to be voluntary, compassionate, and focused upon clear and certain advantages, and even so, it would not be without risk. Tampering with Nature is not without risk, as we have discovered from our use of pesticides. But taking a chance is preferable to accepting the status quo.
No comments:
Post a Comment