I have recently come to the realization that revenge is evil, but justice is righteous. Revenge is not the same as vengeance because vengeance in someone’s name is different than the person taking vengeance upon themselves. This is the solution to an argument that has been nagging me for the last five years or so that I could not seem to get around. This argument goes something like this, “Will putting this person to death for their crimes restore what was lost?” This is a good argument because it disarms any and all emotions. However, my initial statement is the ground that I will be using in discussing this controversial issue.
The reason that someone is put to death for a crime is not because it restores anything, but because it is just. If someone murders ten people, does anyone actually think that this man can be rehabilitated? I can understand changing the prison system and rehabilitating a person who killed only one person depending on the severity of the victim’s death, but does anyone think that it is possible to rehabilitate a criminal who has murdered a massive amount of people? Sure it is possible, but in reality is it probable? I would submit that it is not.
Let us pretend we had tried Saddam Hussein for his infamous war crimes in the United States, does anyone actually think it would be possible to rehabilitate him for his genocides he committed against his own people? He was deserving of death, not to restore the victims or even to give the victims peace of mind, but because it is just and it should be viewed as a reparation payment to a member of humanity that was lost. It is righteous and just for the sheer fact that someone is to be paid their wages for their actions. If someone works for you, are you going to send them on their way without payment? Of course not! If someone steals $50,000 from you, are you going to demand $50,000 back? You would probably get more because of lawyer and court fees. Many people would claim that no one can put a value on life, so if we are so valuable, then can any amount of monetary reparative payment be enough to satisfy the suffering of a family? I do not ask this from a vengeance standpoint, but from a reparative standpoint. So why are we going to allow someone who murdered someone to either walk, or torture them by keeping them confined for the rest of their lives?
I have also heard that the death penalty is cruel in of itself, but let me ask a question: which is crueler, keeping a person confined in a building for the rest of their life or ending their life? Even if we changed the prison system to a model more like Sweden, would anyone honestly be alright living in their house without being allowed to go outside for the rest of their lives? I know I would go insane if I was never allowed to go outside ever again. This is not what keeps me from committing crimes, rather it is my moral compass that does so. However, I am also afraid to commit a crime because I would rather not be confined to a space for the rest of my life.
The death penalty is neither cruel nor an act of vengeance by the victim’s family or the victim. However, if in a scenario it is about vengeance, then perhaps the death penalty should be spared until the family or the victim can learn what justice is rather than vengeance is. We can all safely assume that bitterness is like drinking poison and expecting someone else to die. So I can partially sympathize with the opposing viewpoint, but I, in clean conscience, cannot ask a criminal not to properly pay the reparations for what they have committed.
No comments:
Post a Comment