wallysworld

Let me start off by saying that I'm not going to level an opinion (I do have one, but it won't be expressed here explicitly).  What I want to express is the ideals that seem to drive each side of the capital punishment debate that the Troy Davis event pulled out of the public opinion circle….yet again.  The problem, like most ALL social issues, is that there's never a simple answer.  Life dictates that there isn't...that's what keeps human beings with all of it's 3-D complexities interested and confused at the same time.

One in particular, capital punishment, takes many angles, with the most simplified debate position being from either "justice" or "mercy."  Neither argument is flawless, but each provides a platform for continuous debate.  The difficulty about debating capital punishment is that it revolves around life or death.  And more often than not, the focus seems to be inordinately placed on the finality of the accused perpetrator of the crime while ignoring the victims.  As I've posted in Facebook, for those who felt that the execution of Troy Davis was a travesty, these cases never cease to amaze me concerning the psychological theory of source credibility on communication effectiveness. It was discovered in studies during the 1950's that at the time of exposure, subjects discounted material from "untrustworthy" sources. In time, however, the subjects tended to disassociate the content and the source with the result that the original skepticism faded and the "untrustworthy" material was accepted. Lies, in fact, seemed to be remembered better than truth. In the case of Troy Davis, the reverse is true. Time has made it easy to erase and discount the evidence and facts about what he was convicted of doing in favor of marginal material to demonstrate the contrary and leave everyone to believe that for some reason he was exonerated to a degree.

Thus, while debating executions, it's easy to forget the 20 year ago tragedy that took a life and ruined a family forever...where's the "justice" for the victim and family?  Well, that's the core of the debate.  Do we live in a society where "blood atonement" presides?  It seems that the fallibility of imperfect humans, where an accused who could lose their life over the possibility of a false accusation, overshadows the crime that was committed, and victims who have no choice but to live with the aftermath.  The only conclusive thing is that a crime took place, someone was wrongfully murdered and the possibility of the accused not being the "right" person creates paralysis.  As has been mentioned in articles before, for those convicted who confess, a sigh of relief is expressed, the definitive requirement of allowing the execution to occur has been met, and the result seems to represent true "justice."

But for those who abhor capital punishment all together, where is the "justice" for the families whose lives were altered forever?  Many feel that "rotting in jail" is enough.  Have you been to the correctional system lately?  It's not the image of the 19th century penitentiary system; it's a lot better and "rot" probably isn't the right word.  I suppose the lack of "freedom" should be punishment enough; but there are many who like being out of society and into a very structured environment where they don't worry about anything.  I know there's a conversation about the "brutality" of the prison system and the violence that exists there, but really?  Three meals a day, no expenses, no concern for self-support.  Many believe they can cope with the a level of violence in prison as well or better than what is out in a "free" society.  So again, where is the justice for the victims?  Yes, capital punishment is the ultimate punishment, but what else is there?  I suppose we could reduce murder to a fine…since everything is about commerce, what's the cost of a life?  Oh, but that would be equally insensitive since life is priceless…except for the life that was taken.

I'm not quite convinced that the possibility of death is, in itself, a deterrent for all people to not commit murder.  Most murders happen in the heat or emotion of the moment. If a reasonable person were to think about the murder action prior, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do it.  Thus, "deterrent" only works when there's a conscious thought process to connect the action with the consequence.  But then again, that's why there are criteria which must be met to meet the bar of capital punishment sentencing.  Only those crimes which are premeditated, ruthless, disregarding and brutal in nature are eligible.  Anything less including emotional and heat of the moment actions do not usually make the capital punishment criteria.  So then, why not have capital punishment?  Ah, but the "humanity" question comes in.  "The world is watching!" war cry is heard; are we now reduced to trying to "shame" people into not using capital punishment?  How can a "humane" society still allow execution?  Well, I don't know, how can a society not allow it?  How can a society allow a murder to go "unpunished?" Is there some overwhelming evolutionary trait that says a mature human mind, culture, society, government…or a race of people are elevated when they don't pursue capital punishment for crimes so heinous that they revolt and shame the masses of the same race?  Isn't that what "natural selection" as applied to social consciousness is all about?  I suppose it would be "artificial selection" given that it's legislated, but it follows the theory close enough.  Thus "mercy" to the accused is fulfilled and "justice" provided to the victims according to evolutions' selection requirements…hmmm, so Darwin had it right afterall.