People
naturally respond to incentives. As for the case of punishment, people are
inclined to steer away from it, which is why capital punishment continues to
exist in Texas. However, the reason capital punishment is still a case debated
today is because of differing opinions towards the level of justice that should
be permitted.
Settling
how far capital punishment should go has been an issue floating in the air for
a while, and my take on it is that Texas should continue using only lethal
injections on those who committed severe cases, but also, giving them an extra
choice of whether they would prefer to be detained for a life-time, rather than
facing the needle against their will.
For many
people, capital punishment confronts their religious stance on murder. My
question is, would it be as wrong to take their life if it was their choice?
The space allotted for prisons is shrinking, yet there is not a decreasing
amount of people disobeying the law. This leaves Texas to take major action
against severely punishing those who have committed the worse crimes for the
benefit of the community.
I see
capital punishment as saving lives by ridding of the ones who hindered the
lives of others from subsisting. This type of punishment does not seem so
outrageous, as well, in comparison to the atrocious crime that the person probably
willingly committed. The method of lethal injection is as subtle as I can
imagine putting someone to death can be, and behind the science of it, the
chemicals of the injection are strong enough to knock out a person’s conscience
in up to five seconds.
Capital
punishment is necessary to deter murder by putting the fear of death into
future, would-be criminals. Society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of citizens, even if it means punishing those who have proven to be detrimental to society. My only addition to the law is that justice can be given in the hands of the criminals if Texas gives them the choice of death or permanent isolation, to mark the middle-ground between what might be justifiable or unfair.
1 comment:
In a blog post titled, “Capital Punishment: Retribution for the Righteous,” Tammy Huang writes about the topic of Capital Punishment. She talks about how this penalty exists primarily to deter people from committing drastic crimes such as murder, with which I do agree, but unfortunately I have to say that this method is quite antiquated and ineffective.
First off, I strongly believe that two wrongs don’t make a right. I certainly agree that people who commit such offenses must be punished, but when we turn around and murder someone for murdering another, aren’t we actually encouraging these acts through sheer hypocrisy? The whole point of the law is that we as humans do not hold the right to take life from another, regardless of how we feel about them.
The other point that I’d like to make kind of ties in with the last one. Huang talks about striking a middle ground for these criminals and giving them the choice of death by lethal injection, or life in prison. If it were up to me, I would honestly do things a bit differently. I would not offer the option of death at all—especially by lethal injection. It’s too easy and painless. The real punishment would be to let these people spend countless hours confined to a place where they are stripped of their freedom, and have no choice but to come face to face with their own conscience.
Post a Comment