| Youth Beat |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Sarah Baddour is a
graduate student at
North Carolina State
University
graduate student at
North Carolina State
University
For every action there is a reaction and when one chooses to destroy human
life he must be responsible for that choice. If there were no accountability of
such behavior than life would not be held dear and one man could easily
choose to terminate another’s without any fear of consequences. Fraud is
certainly a different crime and less offensive than murder but even there do we
demand full compensation.
Death penalty opponents claim that murder is murder and that state execution
is as horrific as the acts of an axe murderer or someone who decides to blow
out someone’s brains for his wallet or paycheck. I do not agree because the
intent id different. One is based on selfishness and a total disregard for human
life, the other is based on the need to control violence and get consideration of
the fact that a life has been taken unjustly. As a sane society we cannot turn a
blind eye to the useless lost of life. In far too many instances it is the case of a
unsuspecting person being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it is a mother
who was scheduled to return to her children, it is a father who will never play
the role her was suppose to play in his children’s life.
The death is not the result of a drug deal gone wrong or a turf war, and whether
it is or isn’t should that factor into the fact that someone has destroyed a life
that they had no right to take. A bullet destroys history and a future. What is the
correct compensation for such a deed?
To even incarcerate a murderer for an indefinite amount of time is offering an
option that the murderer did not allow his victim. Man has been created with
freewill and he should be accepted and dealt with as such. “An eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth’ offers a way of true redemption and true deliverance
from the evil that has been created by the act. Is it harsh? Yes it is. Is it a
permanent form of retribution? Of course it is.
But it gives full weight to the act and is necessary to make a man fear what may
be the response to a particular action. In addition it gives full recognition that
the victim was not a countless and insignificant entity. The victim was someone
to be recognized, even in death and that the manner in which he died was not
belittled.
Today many states are declaring a moratorium on the death penalty, many with
good reason. As much as we would like to see criminals get their just due,
many are being convicted of crimes without having the proper representation.
They are basically considered “guilty until proven innocent.” If a man’s
happens to be poor, exoneration may be unlikely to happen.
Plea bargains become a means by which to survive a system that is not always
fair. Legal projects are surfacing all over that are uncovering proof that some of
those accused have been convicted unjustly. It has now come to light that
some of these victims, of a biased justice system, were even executed only
later to be found innocent.
Governors of several states know now that it is not a simple case of “crime and
punishment” when being convicted of a crime. Unless we can fix the problems
that exist within the penal system, it may be better to stop executing the
convicted until we are sure that the accused was tried was fairly and a
sentence was handed down for the right reason.
life he must be responsible for that choice. If there were no accountability of
such behavior than life would not be held dear and one man could easily
choose to terminate another’s without any fear of consequences. Fraud is
certainly a different crime and less offensive than murder but even there do we
demand full compensation.
Death penalty opponents claim that murder is murder and that state execution
is as horrific as the acts of an axe murderer or someone who decides to blow
out someone’s brains for his wallet or paycheck. I do not agree because the
intent id different. One is based on selfishness and a total disregard for human
life, the other is based on the need to control violence and get consideration of
the fact that a life has been taken unjustly. As a sane society we cannot turn a
blind eye to the useless lost of life. In far too many instances it is the case of a
unsuspecting person being in the wrong place at the wrong time, it is a mother
who was scheduled to return to her children, it is a father who will never play
the role her was suppose to play in his children’s life.
The death is not the result of a drug deal gone wrong or a turf war, and whether
it is or isn’t should that factor into the fact that someone has destroyed a life
that they had no right to take. A bullet destroys history and a future. What is the
correct compensation for such a deed?
To even incarcerate a murderer for an indefinite amount of time is offering an
option that the murderer did not allow his victim. Man has been created with
freewill and he should be accepted and dealt with as such. “An eye for an eye
and a tooth for a tooth’ offers a way of true redemption and true deliverance
from the evil that has been created by the act. Is it harsh? Yes it is. Is it a
permanent form of retribution? Of course it is.
But it gives full weight to the act and is necessary to make a man fear what may
be the response to a particular action. In addition it gives full recognition that
the victim was not a countless and insignificant entity. The victim was someone
to be recognized, even in death and that the manner in which he died was not
belittled.
Today many states are declaring a moratorium on the death penalty, many with
good reason. As much as we would like to see criminals get their just due,
many are being convicted of crimes without having the proper representation.
They are basically considered “guilty until proven innocent.” If a man’s
happens to be poor, exoneration may be unlikely to happen.
Plea bargains become a means by which to survive a system that is not always
fair. Legal projects are surfacing all over that are uncovering proof that some of
those accused have been convicted unjustly. It has now come to light that
some of these victims, of a biased justice system, were even executed only
later to be found innocent.
Governors of several states know now that it is not a simple case of “crime and
punishment” when being convicted of a crime. Unless we can fix the problems
that exist within the penal system, it may be better to stop executing the
convicted until we are sure that the accused was tried was fairly and a
sentence was handed down for the right reason.
