The death penalty often makes the news, usually connected with a horrendous murder. I am neutral on the subject, with due respect for both sides of the issue, although I believe capital punishment must be reserved for murderers, and their guilt must be ironclad, and the judicial process transparent and clean, and the execution relatively painless and dignified. I believe murder by violence or murder by proxy are equivalent, and murder by proxy may indeed be worse. If a business sells a product that kills while knowing that it kills and going to great lengths to conceal its lethality, then its owner is a murderer of multitudes by proxy, and how is he any better than a stabber or a shooter? No, he is worse, he is more cunning and dangerous by far.
It is difficult for me to sympathize with the plight of a convicted killer. It seems to me the guilt, in any person with a functioning conscience, that would come from extinguishing or marring innocent lives should make such a killer welcome the death penalty, rather than fear it. I don't condone torture, but on the other hand I don't see any travesty arising from taking the killer's life. It may have a therapeutic effect upon the victim's family and it does carry historical and cultural weight. It is a way of deterring survivors from pursuing ancient vendetta. How much better to let justice take its slow, methodical course!
I think modern forms of the death penalty are too elaborate and therefore liable to malfunction for a variety of reasons. Such methods as lethal injection were designed by people who are not competent engineers in any sense of the word. Ethical forms of capital punishment include beheading, shooting, and hanging. These methods are easy to understand and to execute. A competent engineer knows the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid). To expect prison guards to have a Ph.D. in medicine is unrealistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment