Friday, February 26, 2016

Murdering the Murderers by Willow Booth




The first known laws on the death penalty were written in the Code of Hammurabi which was written sometime during the 1700’s BC. This code preached an eye for an eye very literally. If a man broke the bone of someone, his own bone would be broken in retaliation. Capital crimes, though, were more so an eye for a lung. If a son and his mother were caught committing incest, they were burned to death. Even what is seen as a minor offence could earn the offender his or her death (ushistory.org). My question is: has the system of the death penalty really evolved past this? The simple definition of murder according to Merriam-Webster is the crime of deliberately killing a person. This definition includes both the offender and the execution. We teach that murder is wrong then prove it by murdering those who commit murder. An eye for an eye.

America, the land of the free, has always been affiliated with varying levels of racial oppression. A lot of people would argue that there is no such oppression present in the U.S. today, but, sadly, this is not the case. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in cases resulting in execution, more than 75% of the murder victims were white. The fact that generally only 50% of the victims are white makes this statistic even worse (Facts about the Death Penalty). Not to mention that eyewitness identification is markedly worse when a witness is attempting to identify someone of a different race than themselves. Eyewitness identification is the leading cause of wrongful convictions (NCADP).

            A common argument for the death penalty is that keeping these people in prison for the rest of their lives is costing the government huge amounts of money that could be better used elsewhere. In all actuality, this is the complete opposite of the truth. The Palm Beach Post wrote that it costs Florida $51 million more than what it would cost to punish all first-degree murderers with life in prison without parole. A survey was done in 2009 of all of the former and current -of the time- presidents of America’s top criminological societies (Facts about the Death Penalty). They were all asked the same question: Do executions lower homicide rates? Of those asked, 88% responded with “no.” This means that approximately $51 million is being spent on a program that does not help the future generation when there are plenty of other methods do just that such as early childhood education, increasing high school graduation rates, gang prevention, mental health services, drug/alcohol treatment services.

            When you put someone else’s life in your hands, no matter who they are, you are placing yourself on the same level as God for only He gets to decide who lives and who dies. In John chapter 8, an angry crowd brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus (John). The law of that time said that the woman should be stoned to death, a very painful version of the death penalty. In response He said, “He that is without sin among you, let him fist cast a stone at her.” Basically, Jesus is saying that only those who have lived an absolutely perfect life can condemn someone else. Jesus himself could have thrown the first stone, but opted for forgiveness instead. Therefore, I will only agree with the death penalty when one of the jurors is entirely sinless.

            The death penalty, is a prehistoric practice that allows for too much bad to be used for good. Racial bias, wasting millions of dollars yearly, and people playing God all come with one simple execution. People fail to realize the lives that this system ruins in an effort to save them. It truly is a flawed system that should have been made extinct many years ago. Yet, somehow, it is still used frequently today. This year, as of February 18, 2016, 7 people have already been executed (Facts about the Death Penalty). If we put all of the effort and resources on prevention rather than consequence, we would not need all of the jails that we have today. When we stop creating criminals, we can stop killing them.


http://boothfwillow56cf4d057cfae.edu.glogster.com/death-penalty/ 

2 comments:

  1. I believe that you have some very good points, and information to back them up. When you're put in the place to decide whether or not someone should live or die, you are effectively "playing God". Which in fact, if you are a religious person who bases their morals upon the bible you are being blasphemous. If a devoted Christian supports the death penalty they are going against God's will and everything they should stand for. As presented in many parables, Jesus teachers that forgiveness is important, and that you should share your love with everyone, even murders. If you are going to put someone to death for killing someone, you aren't following the guidelines that Jesus set out for Christians. The only flaw is, what if this person is not a devoted Christian, and is of a different belief? The argument of "playing God" wouldn't be effective.
    -Bethany Pace

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with your argument. You make many good points about the subject and explained why it is not a practice that should still be used. When talking about the forgiveness and the “eye for an eye” statement you can use the scripture of Matthew 5:38-39. It says “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But however slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. NKJV.” Using this would show back your stance on the way that Jesus told his followers to not retaliate evil with evil, but with good. Keep up the fight against the unjust solution to a problem that can be solved without the death of people, even if they did commit the terrible crime.

    ReplyDelete