I'm
back with more on the death penalty. Yippee! My colleague Robert, whom is also
unsure where he stands on the issue, brought up some very important situations in
his comment on my last post of the death penalty, which is great! I never even
thought about the situations that he brought to my attention. He brought up the
point of what if the person is found innocent after being executed? How can the
individual be repaid for the time spent in jail and the loss of their life?
They really can't. You can’t give someone his or her life back after it’s gone.
Even if a person is acquitted before being executed, the money they are granted
for the time served can never make up for the time lost and the damage done by
the years spent in solitary confinement.
As
Robert pointed out, there is a famous case of Cameron Todd Willingham who was
executed for burning down his house resulting in the death of his three
children. Willingham was executed in 2004; however, new arson investigation
techniques prove Willingham did not start the fire that killed his children.
The evidence could have acquitted Willingham, but acquitting him now doesn't repair the damage.
Robert
also shows an example of why we use the death penalty. He explains another
famous case of Kenneth Allen McDuff who was convicted of murder and was
sentenced to death. He had committed other murders that he was not convicted
of. Before he was executed, the death penalty was repealed in Texas and he was
given life without parole. Somehow McDuff was paroled and committed several
more murders. After being caught, he was executed with a total murder count of
fourteen.
I’m
glad to have these situations presented to me, but I am not any closer to
deciding where I stand on the death penalty. What is the right use of punishment for murder? If an individual is put to death for a crime they didn't commit or if an individual is released and continues to kill, either way it's a lose-lose situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment