by Greg Slack

Created on: March 11, 2010   Last Updated: March 12, 2010

To assess the death penalty we first need to recognize a number. 38%, thats the number of parolees who went back to prison in the year 2005 according to the US Dept of Justice. Better than one third of all paroled prisoners in 2005 went right back to prison presumably for another crime. From that we can make a few pretty safe assumptions.

First we have a problem with rehabilitation, the system of parole, or both. Second, over 1/3rd of the time a violent offender will be a repeat violent offender. And third, as of right now we can't fix these issues.

If we could fix them we would have done so by now. Parole and rehabilitation is over a third of the time non-effective, so we have to make some hard choices for the greater good of the community. Decisions not easily made nor easily lived with after.

These decisions have to be made regardless of our moral objections, the cries of our conscience, or our desire for mercy and good will.

The real issue is duality. We have a marked propensity to contradict ourselves and then demand action from others on both of our conflicting arguments. We want prisons to be a nice place where criminals can learn and better themselves, thinking this will make them not want to commit crimes.

But then when that happens and something goes wrong we want to know how this could have happened and demand it be fixed. See the problem?

We want to be kind, charitable, and forgiving but only as long as it suits our needs, and when it doesn't we react like children demanding our new form of justice now. This in a nutshell, is both why we have a death penalty and why we debate its validity.

Let's drop all the propaganda for either side, all the feel good rhetoric about morality and the nonsense about vengeance or justice or deterrents because the death penalty isn't about any of those things.

The reality of it is a simple matter of acceptable risk and unacceptable risk. Whats more the factor of costs to risk both acceptable and unacceptable.

Is it acceptable to those who stand up to the ridicule and scorn when all the desires for decency and compassion prove futile? Moreover is the costs that come with that, during and after acceptable to those who we point our fingers at and hold accountable?

How about if it's acceptable to those who have to bear the burden of guilt when another murder is committed by one who received that mercy.

For you and I or any person outside the situation, it may seem a simple matter of right and wrong. But when you have

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page >>