|
Articles:
Politics
Justice
is Not Only Blind, But Fallible
Sunday, May 1, 2005
To
a lot of people, the death penalty seems like a swell idea.
If a person commits a heinous crime, execution seems like
an appropriate punishment. A piece of filth who rapes and
murders little kids, for example, does not belong in our society,
or even in this world. But what if the convicted really didn't
do it?
Generally
speaking, I have to believe our judicial system works. The
legal process, for the most part, seems to determine guilt
or innocence pretty accurately. There have been many cases,
however, where people are wrongfully incarcerated. Some cases,
even, where innocent people are executed. Does the phrase
"if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few
eggs" seem appropriate when we're dealing with peoples
lives?
A
lot of people seem really bloodthirsty when it comes to execution.
It's easy to become this way when you hear the gory details
about a case. An unkempt-looking man sits in the courtroom.
You hear testimony from witnesses who saw him do this or that.
You see grotesque evidence, crime scene photos, and a host
of other visuals that spark knee-jerk reactions and a call
for the blood of the accused. In the heat of such passionate
outrage, few dare to suggest the alleged perpetrator of the
crime may still be innocent. Perhaps he was in the wrong place
at the wrong time, maybe the scapegoat of a prosecutor looking
to wrap up a case. In any event, the man is imprisoned on
death row. He sees his life go out the window…no more
wife, no more kids, only the blank stare of four empty walls
to pass the days. After years of utter misery, to the jubilance
of the public, he is executed. Some time after that, new DNA
evidence proves it was someone else. Oops. "Ah well",
some would say, "mistakes get made but the system works
overall. We really are sorry."
Does
"sorry" really cut it? If people out for blood will
convict an innocent person to death, are they not themselves
murderers? Can we really commit ourselves to executing people
who may not be guilty?
Although
evidence may seem to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that
someone is guilty, the system at times has failed. In the
absence of absolute knowledge, wouldn't it be better to sentence
someone to eternity in prison instead of death? A prison sentence
is reversible…a death sentence is not. Even then, I firmly
believe people who are wrongfully imprisoned should receive
just compensation for the years of their life they lost to
a fallible system. It won't necessarily put things back in
order, but at least it will assist the victim of system failure
in getting back on track. It could also serve to punish the
system, and taxpayers, in a fiscal manner that may give them
reason for more caution down the road.
The
judicial system may work ninety-nine percent of the time,
and to many people that seems great. But I don't believe it
is just or acceptable to wrongly imprison or execute the other
one percent. Battlefield terms like "acceptable loss"
and "collateral damage" seem horrific when we're
dealing with lives of innocent citizens of our fair democracy.
The punishment of swift death is desired by many, but what
if they found themselves wrongfully accused, convicted, and
sentenced to death? I would bet they would change their tune
on the death penalty rather quickly.
In
all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question
mark on the things you have long taken for granted. --Bertrand
Russell
He
that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself. --Thomas Paine
|
