2008 Woodie Awards
Law must be immune from irrationality and incivility with death penalty
Jonathan Wolinsky '10
Issue date: 4/30/08 Section: Commentary
There are not many categories in which I am a minority. Even my eternal love for classic 90's Nickelodeon cartoons can be shared with a large swath of our generation. In one area, however, I belong solidly in the minority. Unlike most Americans, I am ardently opposed to the death penalty. So, it is safe to say the state of Louisiana and I are in a state of disagreement.
A man currently sits inside a Louisiana prison awaiting a decision by the United States Supreme Court about whether he will be executed for raping his 8 year-old stepdaughter. Not since 1964 has someone been executed for a crime that did not involve a death. Louisiana, Texas and several other states very much wish to end this dry streak.
Granted, I agree that raping an 8 year-old girl makes you a monster. I'm not solely interested, however, in the specifics of this one case. I am interested in questioning the reasoning, legitimacy and legality of state-sponsored murder.
The reality is that our legal system is not nearly as subjective and unbiased as we would like it to be. The inescapable fallibility of man is readily present in deciding cases every day. This is not to say that we don't have safeguards, but they can only go so far.
Let us pretend that my parents were brutally murdered by a malicious axe-wielding maniac named Ruben. I can't be sure, but this situation might cause me to reverse my position on the death penalty entirely. I might even want to kill Ruben myself.
I can be sure, however, that if I were in that situation I would definitely not be one of the twelve jurors tasked with deciding Ruben's fate. I would be inherently and understandably biased against Ruben. Thus, the law would not allow me to be involved directly in his punishment. In this manner, the law defends itself against subjectivity.
To invoke the image of 8 year-old girl being brutally raped, similarly tugs at all of our emotions, because it defies reason and any semblance of civility. That is precisely what law is supposed to be: reason and civility.
We cannot, therefore, punish the insane acts of people like Ruben and the stepfather rapist with further insanity. We cannot reciprocate their levels of irrationality and barbarity just because we are upset or appalled. Law must be immune from this.
In the words of the Nebraska Supreme Court, "It is the hallmark of a civilized society that we punish cruelty without practicing it."
I think that killing is cruel. If we punish people by killing them, we straddle a very thin line between us, the "civilized," and them, the worst criminals.
This is not simply a plea to save the life of the man sitting on Death Row. This is a plea for reason and rationality. This is a plea for us to realize that our actions and our morals are dangerously out of synch.
A man currently sits inside a Louisiana prison awaiting a decision by the United States Supreme Court about whether he will be executed for raping his 8 year-old stepdaughter. Not since 1964 has someone been executed for a crime that did not involve a death. Louisiana, Texas and several other states very much wish to end this dry streak.
Granted, I agree that raping an 8 year-old girl makes you a monster. I'm not solely interested, however, in the specifics of this one case. I am interested in questioning the reasoning, legitimacy and legality of state-sponsored murder.
The reality is that our legal system is not nearly as subjective and unbiased as we would like it to be. The inescapable fallibility of man is readily present in deciding cases every day. This is not to say that we don't have safeguards, but they can only go so far.
Let us pretend that my parents were brutally murdered by a malicious axe-wielding maniac named Ruben. I can't be sure, but this situation might cause me to reverse my position on the death penalty entirely. I might even want to kill Ruben myself.
I can be sure, however, that if I were in that situation I would definitely not be one of the twelve jurors tasked with deciding Ruben's fate. I would be inherently and understandably biased against Ruben. Thus, the law would not allow me to be involved directly in his punishment. In this manner, the law defends itself against subjectivity.
To invoke the image of 8 year-old girl being brutally raped, similarly tugs at all of our emotions, because it defies reason and any semblance of civility. That is precisely what law is supposed to be: reason and civility.
We cannot, therefore, punish the insane acts of people like Ruben and the stepfather rapist with further insanity. We cannot reciprocate their levels of irrationality and barbarity just because we are upset or appalled. Law must be immune from this.
In the words of the Nebraska Supreme Court, "It is the hallmark of a civilized society that we punish cruelty without practicing it."
I think that killing is cruel. If we punish people by killing them, we straddle a very thin line between us, the "civilized," and them, the worst criminals.
This is not simply a plea to save the life of the man sitting on Death Row. This is a plea for reason and rationality. This is a plea for us to realize that our actions and our morals are dangerously out of synch.
Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1
Texas Holdem Online Poker Rooms
posted 12/22/08 @ 8:49 AM EST
In most of the country atl least for raping, the law doesn't give death penalty. But it is bad, rapist of an 8 year old, who is the father of the daughter ( so what if he is a step father should be punished severally. (Continued…)
Post a Comment