the row over death row
--------------------
In the last few weeks many people will have heard the name Stanley "Tookie" Williams, due to a high-profile campaign to spare the ex-gang leader from execution in California. Supporters of Williams, who was convicted of four murders in 1981, range from actor Jamie Foxx and rap star Snoop Dogg to Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Winnie Mandela. The case has raised a number of political, social and legal issues that have propelled it from the U.S. West Coast into the national arena.
Williams, co-founded the notorious Crips gang, but while in jail has apparently been rehabilitated, winning praise for his anti-gang books, and earning several Nobel Peace Prize nominations for his teachings. His lawyers are not asking California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to spare his life because he is innocent - although Williams still denies the murders. Instead they say he is worth more alive than dead because of his work helping youths to avoid gangs.
--------------------
The paths of ethics and law never seem to stray too far from each other. Almost every controversial issue that has been debated in history has been caused by a conflict between what is ethical and what is legal. Perhaps there has never been a more controversial issue in all of history as capital punishment. Herein lies the heart of the debate: Is it ethical to make lawful the infliction of death?
I would argue that capital punishment is a morally intolerable institution. Homicide should not be used as an instrument of social policy because state execution creates a climate that holds life cheap. More importantly, the death penalty ought to be eliminated because human beings are fallible. A study by Amnesty International presented evidence that 350 people convicted of capital crimes in the U.S. between 1900 and 1985 were actually innocent. In most cases the discovery of new evidence of new evidence resulted in acquittal, pardon, commutation of sentence or dismissal of the charges. Some prisoners escaped execution by minutes, but 23 were actually executed. It is trite to say that death is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent, but when lives are at stake, there is no acceptable margin of error. Even if it were possible to administer the death penalty in a fair, equitable, non-discriminatory, and error-free fashion, it is unequivocal that the death penalty would still violate fundamental human rights.
Over half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Most of the countries that retain the practice do so to repress racial, religious, ethnic, or political opposition. The majority of states, of different political and government structures and varying religious and racial demographics, have agreed that the death penalty is unacceptable in their societies. There is something to be concluded from this progress towards worldwide abolition.
By no means is this stance intended to be disrespectful of the victims or the families of violent crime. The argument is against the infliction of death, not to condone the acts of the unequivocally guilty. Ultimately the argument must rest not on emotions but on reason and universal respect for human life. Historically, the death penalty was seen as an exception to the respect for life. It is time to conclude that the exception no longer has any moral or legal purchase. Respect for life should prevail, without exception.
--------------------
In the last few weeks many people will have heard the name Stanley "Tookie" Williams, due to a high-profile campaign to spare the ex-gang leader from execution in California. Supporters of Williams, who was convicted of four murders in 1981, range from actor Jamie Foxx and rap star Snoop Dogg to Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and Winnie Mandela. The case has raised a number of political, social and legal issues that have propelled it from the U.S. West Coast into the national arena.
Williams, co-founded the notorious Crips gang, but while in jail has apparently been rehabilitated, winning praise for his anti-gang books, and earning several Nobel Peace Prize nominations for his teachings. His lawyers are not asking California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to spare his life because he is innocent - although Williams still denies the murders. Instead they say he is worth more alive than dead because of his work helping youths to avoid gangs.
--------------------
The paths of ethics and law never seem to stray too far from each other. Almost every controversial issue that has been debated in history has been caused by a conflict between what is ethical and what is legal. Perhaps there has never been a more controversial issue in all of history as capital punishment. Herein lies the heart of the debate: Is it ethical to make lawful the infliction of death?
I would argue that capital punishment is a morally intolerable institution. Homicide should not be used as an instrument of social policy because state execution creates a climate that holds life cheap. More importantly, the death penalty ought to be eliminated because human beings are fallible. A study by Amnesty International presented evidence that 350 people convicted of capital crimes in the U.S. between 1900 and 1985 were actually innocent. In most cases the discovery of new evidence of new evidence resulted in acquittal, pardon, commutation of sentence or dismissal of the charges. Some prisoners escaped execution by minutes, but 23 were actually executed. It is trite to say that death is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent, but when lives are at stake, there is no acceptable margin of error. Even if it were possible to administer the death penalty in a fair, equitable, non-discriminatory, and error-free fashion, it is unequivocal that the death penalty would still violate fundamental human rights.
Over half the countries in the world have now abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Most of the countries that retain the practice do so to repress racial, religious, ethnic, or political opposition. The majority of states, of different political and government structures and varying religious and racial demographics, have agreed that the death penalty is unacceptable in their societies. There is something to be concluded from this progress towards worldwide abolition.
By no means is this stance intended to be disrespectful of the victims or the families of violent crime. The argument is against the infliction of death, not to condone the acts of the unequivocally guilty. Ultimately the argument must rest not on emotions but on reason and universal respect for human life. Historically, the death penalty was seen as an exception to the respect for life. It is time to conclude that the exception no longer has any moral or legal purchase. Respect for life should prevail, without exception.
--------------------
posted by þΛųL jØŋαŦhΛŋ @ 22:30
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home