I also have a consistent life ethic, but (if I may pat my own back for a moment) I'm also wise enough to know that keeping murderers alive is not a consistent life ethic. Leaving people alive who deserve to die puts other prisoners at risk (my brother-in-law is a CO, and he is full of stories of things he has seen with his own eyes that …
I also have a consistent life ethic, but (if I may pat my own back for a moment) I'm also wise enough to know that keeping murderers alive is not a consistent life ethic. Leaving people alive who deserve to die puts other prisoners at risk (my brother-in-law is a CO, and he is full of stories of things he has seen with his own eyes that would make your blood run cold). Keeping them alive puts innocent CO's at risk (If you've been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, what else can be done to you if you murder other inmates or CO's? Just tack on another life sentence?). Occasionally prisoners escape and then murder other innocent people while on the run (look it up, it happens more often than you probably think).
In short, it seems easy to say, "I'm just for life. Let's keep killers away from the innocent and that way, we aren't responsible for killing anyone or accidently killing someone who is innocent." Reality doesn't work that way. As Thomas Sowell says, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."
By keeping murders alive, the State gets to wash it's hands of direct responsibility for the deaths of guilty people. But when the State decides to keep a murderer alive, doesn't the State at least share in the responsibility for all the people killed by murderers who have been caught and convicted and then kill in prison, or escape and kill, or are released and then kill again?
Finally, the way that a society punishes crime says the most about how that society values that crime and it's victims.
When a society decides that people who murder shouldn't die, then that society is sending the message that it doesn't value the lives of the innocent over the lives of the guilty. An innocent person is murdered, children have a parent stolen from them, a husband has a wife stolen from them, parents have a child stolen from them, siblings have a sister stolen from them, friends have a companion stolen from them, a community has neighbor stolen from them, and everyone, particularly the immediate family of the victim, have a future stolen from them. But when the killer is allowed family connections, friends, a future, it's spitting in the face of not just the victim, but everyone who knew a valued the victim. The killer can talk on the phone with his brother? The brother of the murdered victim has had every future phone call with his sibling stolen from him. The killer can read a book or listen to music? His victim can never read or listen to anything ever again.
When a society fails to execute people who have done things worthy of death, it is absolutely sending the message that it values the life of the guilty more than the life of the murdered innocent. It is so valuing the life of the guilty over the lives of his future victims.
I also have a consistent life ethic, but (if I may pat my own back for a moment) I'm also wise enough to know that keeping murderers alive is not a consistent life ethic. Leaving people alive who deserve to die puts other prisoners at risk (my brother-in-law is a CO, and he is full of stories of things he has seen with his own eyes that would make your blood run cold). Keeping them alive puts innocent CO's at risk (If you've been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, what else can be done to you if you murder other inmates or CO's? Just tack on another life sentence?). Occasionally prisoners escape and then murder other innocent people while on the run (look it up, it happens more often than you probably think).
In short, it seems easy to say, "I'm just for life. Let's keep killers away from the innocent and that way, we aren't responsible for killing anyone or accidently killing someone who is innocent." Reality doesn't work that way. As Thomas Sowell says, "There are no solutions, only tradeoffs."
By keeping murders alive, the State gets to wash it's hands of direct responsibility for the deaths of guilty people. But when the State decides to keep a murderer alive, doesn't the State at least share in the responsibility for all the people killed by murderers who have been caught and convicted and then kill in prison, or escape and kill, or are released and then kill again?
Finally, the way that a society punishes crime says the most about how that society values that crime and it's victims.
When a society decides that people who murder shouldn't die, then that society is sending the message that it doesn't value the lives of the innocent over the lives of the guilty. An innocent person is murdered, children have a parent stolen from them, a husband has a wife stolen from them, parents have a child stolen from them, siblings have a sister stolen from them, friends have a companion stolen from them, a community has neighbor stolen from them, and everyone, particularly the immediate family of the victim, have a future stolen from them. But when the killer is allowed family connections, friends, a future, it's spitting in the face of not just the victim, but everyone who knew a valued the victim. The killer can talk on the phone with his brother? The brother of the murdered victim has had every future phone call with his sibling stolen from him. The killer can read a book or listen to music? His victim can never read or listen to anything ever again.
When a society fails to execute people who have done things worthy of death, it is absolutely sending the message that it values the life of the guilty more than the life of the murdered innocent. It is so valuing the life of the guilty over the lives of his future victims.