Capital punishment has been a topic of discussion and disagreement for many years. Many people insist that the state has a right to execute those guilty of heinous crimes. They argue that capital punishment protects society and provides closure for those whose loves ones have been murdered. Others argue that the state should not be in the business of executing those on death row. There are good people on both sides of the argument and it would be too easy to dismiss either side without considering the one major fallacy of the way capital punishment is administered in the United States.
The argument for capital punishment assumes guilt on the part of the condemned. That sounds logical but is such an assumption correct? For example, what if there were one person on death row who is actually innocent of the crime for which he was judged guilty? This is not as ludicrous as one might think. In the past several years, over 200 condemned criminals on death row were determined to be innocent due to DNA testing. Since DNA testing is relatively new in the history of criminal justice, one can make a case that, based upon this evidence, many innocent people in this country have been executed in the past. If the state executes an innocent person, is the state guilty of the same crime for which a guilty murderer is executed? I would argue that the state does indeed commit murder in this case. Of course, prior to DNA testing the state would maintain that it acted with good intentions. If that is the case and if DNA testing is now widely available, then it would seem that each state would, in an effort to eliminate the execution of innocent people, ensure that all inmates on death row be given the benefit of the doubt and be allowed DNA testing. I wish that were the case. The governor of my state recently refused to stay an execution so that DNA tests could be performed. The person could be guilty or he could be innocent. We'll never know.
I am not one who is easy on criminals nor am I one to sympathize with those who commit heinous crimes. I become angry when innocent life is taken by a thug and my first reaction is usually that the offender deserves death. However, my anger is not and should not be the determining factor in whether someone should be executed. Anger is a temporary and normal emotional response to such crimes. But, it should not factor in the case for capital punishment. Rather, I have to ask myself if the state should indeed be in the business of taking a person's life. I admit that many years ago I was an advocate of the death penalty. However, over the years I have developed a different position on the matter. Scripture helped me come to my current position.
In chapter 18 of the book of Genesis, God confronts Abraham and tells him that he will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham asks God, "Will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty? Suppose there were fifty innocent people in the city; would you wipe out the place, rather than spare it for the sake of the fifty innocent people within it?" God, relents. He would spare the city if there were fifty innocent people. Abraham pushes him, what if there are five less than fifty? God relents again. Abraham continues until he's down to ten and God says he will not destroy the city for those ten.
There's a lesson in the above. What place more than death row could be better compared metaphorically to Sodom and Gomorrah? Death row houses some of the most pernicious criminals in the land. Yet, DNA testing has proven that there are innocent people on death row. Would society be better off sparing the guilty on death row for the few who might be innocent? I would argue for the elimination of the death penalty. Society must protect the innocent even at the expense of the guilty.
© November 2006
William Charles
No comments:
Post a Comment