This is somewhat of an emotive subject, either generally you are for it or against it. But in my cogitating, I checked out the ‘eye for an eye’ judgement, which is often foreseen as the origin of the death penalty
The thing is, that when the Jews practiced the death penalty, the circumstances were entirely different. In the old days of Israel if there was a crime that took a life, the High Priest acted like a judge. I don’t know if they had to swear ‘to tell the truth, whole truth’ etc, but I guess being in front of the High Priest would be pretty scary enough.
To get a conviction there needed to be two eye witnesses, who could see clearly enough to absolutely identify the criminal. One eye witness? No conviction. Circumstantial evidence? No go. Happened in the dark? Not sufficient proof. And we know why. In today’s courts, as through history, there have been vindictive people trying to incriminate the wrong person. But if two eye witnesses would swear to the act, it was considered sufficient evidence.
Not only was the court different, but the outcome was different too. Today, someone may lie convincingly enough to get someone else convicted of a crime they did not commit. In fact, we know there are constant cases of wrongful conviction.
Today, the emotional outcome for the false witness may be something they could live with. After all, if I got someone convicted, well, they would go to jail for life, which really is 10 to 15 years and then they get out again. If for some reason the innocent victim was given the death penalty, well, someone I have never heard of and who doesn't know me will give him a lethal injection or similar, and I am disconnected from the whole event. I may not even know it is, or has happened.
But in the days of Israel, not only did I have to front up to the person I wrongfully accused, but if the death penalty was given, then the innocent person had to be stoned to death. And I had to personally be there, and witness the death, and I had to be the one to be involved in the death itself.
To me, in Israel’s time, the emotional involvement is much greater, and in my view the probability of deliberate wrongful conviction would be rare.
But today, it seems to me that it is a different matter. Juries are manipulated. Judges can be bought. The system is open to abuse in many ways. I’m sure that many of the judicial decisions are correct, but there are often questions hanging over a decision. In New Zealand there have been several very controversial court cases. (Arthur Alan Thomas and David Bain are two that come to mind.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miscarriage_of_justice_cases#New_Zealand).
In both cases there were no witnesses, no motive could be given, all sorts of theories were postulated, but there certainly were no ‘two eye witnesses’ to prove the point, and after years in prison, they are freed and paid massive compensation.
Bain innocent and deserves payout, judge tells Cabinet
By Audrey Young , Newstalk ZB staff 10:00 AM Monday Sep 10, 20 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10832947David Bain was convicted of killing both parents and three siblings
System let down innocent man
By Keith Hunter 5:30 AM Sunday Apr 15, 2012http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10798854
Arthur Thomas was convicted of killing a married couple on a neighboring farm.
Of course we have the other side of the coin, no doubt many guilty people go free, having money to hire good lawyers etc.
Either way the consequences for the person involved and their families is life shattering.
So for you, do you believe that if someone takes the life of another, they should pay with their own life? Or do you think that in today’s world it is too hard to have absolutely positive proof. Or have we got too soft, so not prepared to take a hard stance on this?
Your comments are welcome.
The death penalty is a subject that I had previously discussed on my blog last year (prior to losing all my articles) when the state of Giorgia executed Troy Davis.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that killing another human being because he/she has killed someone else is right. Not because of any religious beliefs, but mostly because there have been too many cases of people who were executed wrongly (like it was the case of Troy Davis).
The idea is that people who kill should remain in prison, but even that doesn't take into account the fact that some people do eventually learn from their mistakes and may deserve to be out of jail after many years behind bars.
Hi Astrid, thanks for your comment. It's a complicated matter isn't it?
DeleteThank you very much for your post, I also wrote about it today, an important date for all those who believe death penalty should be abolished, for many reasons. We know there are other ways to protect society than killing criminals. We know that innocents have been executed before their claims were taken into account. We know that death penalty is not deterrent, in states like Texas, for example, where most executions occur, criminality has not lessened. We also know that death penalty is not applied fairly, starting with the jury who is generally chosen amongst people who are For D.P. !
ReplyDeleteJust saw a French documentary called "HONK" about three persons who are closely concerned with death penalty : a victim's wife, a DR inmate who has been exonerated and a DR inmate's mother. The producer is Arnaud Gaillard and this documentary is well worth seeing if you ever have the opportunity.
Thanks for your comment isathreadsoflife. I have not heard of that documentary but will keep my eyes open for it.
ReplyDelete