 "Photo: sxc.hu")
If there’s one thing Texans love, it’s death.
It’s no surprise that Texas has the highest execution rate of all 50 states. But has all this killing, fun though it might be, really made Texas a safer state? A recent study done by Sam Houston State University and Duke University says yes.
However, a study done by the California Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice suggested the answer is no. In fact, its findings indicated the murder rate increased after executions.
This is one reason why studies like those done by our friends at Sam Houston and Duke Universities are complete loads of crap. People from both sides of this issue manipulate statistical data in their favor.
Factors like population, geography and socio-economic climate are all dynamic factors in this equation of correlation. And correlation itself is a flimsy science at best. As we’ve all learned in fifth grade science class - correlation does not prove causation.
Since this evidence of numbers, charts and correlations seems to constantly contradict itself or to be pure speculation, it stands to reason that these are not reliable resources to make a decision about the death penalty. Deciding that Texans should take it upon themselves to be the harbingers of death should be a personal conclusion arrived at after much internal moral debate.
Those who champion the death penalty usually reply, after their statistical data and correlation rant runs dry, how would I feel if someone I love was murdered?
This gives me pause.
Because the first thing that comes to my mind when I think of someone I love brutally murdered is that I want whoever did it to die. I want them gone. Wiped from the face of the earth. I would also have the same reaction if someone I love was raped or badly beaten or harmed in any serious way. Of course the person suffering the traumatic event is going to want traumatic revenge.
If a person harms someone you love, you have an instant and emotionally charged reaction. That person, who is thinking irrationally, should not be the one to make the rational decision - especially concerning the question of punishment.
The task of assigning punishment should be left to those who can see that this is a horrible thing that needs to be punished, but they are not directly affected by the results.
Besides, if the death penalty was applied to everything that I think should be punishable by death, there would be a lot fewer people around.
“Well, what would you do with them,” the pro penalty crowd usually retorts. “Give them jobs and let them live next to you? Do you want a killer living next to you?”
No, I don’t. But, in fairness, I also don’t want someone who owns cats living next to me.
That list is just as long as the list of things I think people should die for.
Our penal system is based on the idea that a person can change: rehabilitation. Because of overcrowding and underfunding, however, this is a mostly impossible task. I’m also willing to admit that there are people out there incapable of ever functioning safely in a society, but I think they should be locked up, not put to death.
How would we do this in a system that’s already overstressed? We quit locking up non-violent offenders. This will save tons in resources and funds, allowing our system to move forward and deal with the real threats to society.
People do awful things to one another. Sometimes it seems like eradicating the problem is the best solution, but this is a barbaric, un-evolved way of thinking.
To coldly decide someone’s fate in the manner of the death penalty seems an extreme and unjustified measure. The claimed benefits are nothing more than statistical manipulation and wishful thinking.
There is one last point I’d like to make – not everyone who has been executed has been guilty. Forensic evidence has proven that someone who was convicted was actually innocent much too late on several occasions.
One innocent person accidently dying so someone else can feel better is one too many.
1 comments