I'll post again today, since my "Moon" post is somewhat facetious and I've been rolling a more serious note around my brain.
Possibly because of the Michael Jackson trial fiasco, I've been giving some thought to trials and punishment in general and capital punishment in particular. Not that I think Jackson deserves capital punishment, mind you. Personally, I felt he was probably guilty. The only basis for my judgment? The documentary that was done on VH1 a little while ago about the "King of Pop."
When I watched about a half an hour of the documentary (which was an attempt to clear Jackson's good name, mind you), I was floored by Jackson's odd, child-like mentality. I watched Jackson walk through some overpriced art gallery in Vegas, buying 1/2 million dollar vases and faux paintings with hardly a thought to his already overstrained finances (he was already bankrupt back then).
Listening to him talk, it gave you the sense that you were listening to someone who never had to grow up. I felt that Jackson was an extremely wealthy, egotistical child surrounded by lawyers and conmen. I couldn't help but feel sorry for him.
It was no wonder, then, that Jackson desired to build Neverland: a place where no one grows up and where he surrounded himself with children...even, admittedly, in his bed. So, yeah, when he was accused of showing a child pornography I believed it: not because I thought of him as a perverted adult showing a child pornography as much as a 12-year-old boy Michael Jackson showing his 12-year-old friend pornography. And since he's used to always getting his way, his sharkish estate lawyers bought off any previous accusors. That's my take on Michael Jackson and on this case.
Surely, this family suing him is after money. They seem like a bunch of con artists (having sued other entertainers on trumped-up charges). However I still believe Michael Jackson is guilty. When it comes down to it, though, I trust this jury when they say there wasn't enough evidence to convict him. I don't think they were overwhelmed by his stardom (as was the case with the O.J. Simpson trial)...I would suspect they just wanted more hard evidence and never got it.
Now, on to capital punishment.
I don't feel that capital punishment should be easily handed down. I feel that it should be reserved for repeat offenders and people accused of especially heinous crimes like raping or killing children. That being said, I don't get upset when I hear of a murderer being given life in prison. I don't feel like they've been "let off easily" or anything. I guess what I'm saying is that the "life-for-a-life" concept of justice doesn't have to be paid in blood necessarily. In fact, the finality of capital punishment should make us use it very sparingly ... and never on circumstancial evidence. For me to say, "Yes, kill this man," I need to know that there is NO CHANCE that he did not actually purpetrate the crime. I want to know that - five years after his execution - we don't say, "Whoops! We got the wrong guy!"
At the same time, I am very saddened when I hear a murder victims' family being interviewed the day of the execution and they say, "Now justice is done. I want to watch his face as they turn on the juice." If these people truly feel that - somehow - watching a person be killed is going to give them closure about a lost loved one, I think they're sorely mistaken. In fact, I'd assume that - from that moment on - they're not going to be able to focus on anything but pain/hate when they think back on their dead daughter or wife.
No, my reason for upholding limited capital punishment is because I believe the state has the right to request it. We have a social contract with the state and with our fellow citizens. We are allowed life and liberty until we take life or liberty from other people (I know there's more to it than that, but that's the gist). In the same way that the state - if it deems it necessary - can draft its citizens and send them to war...it can also deem it necessary that a citizen no longer has a right to live. I'm not talking totalitarianism here: I'm talking a system of checks and balances and retrials and so forth.
I know that capital trials cost more money. I also know that capital punishment doesn't act as a deterrent to crime. At least, that's what the statisticians say. But, at the same time, I don't see how you could prove that.
The penal system should be, I feel, a system of punishment and reform. I know that it is grossly inadequate for reform and that's something we should be putting more thought into. However, I believe that some criminals shouldn't even be given that chance. I believe that some people have proven that they have no right to live due to their sociopathic ways. I mean people like Charles Manson, Jeffery Dahmer, and Ted Bundy. I also mean someone like Scott Peterson who can kill his pregnant wife and then continue having an affair while they are looking for her body. That's my personal viewpoint. I'd be open for any counterpoints or support.
7 years ago
4 comments:
I'm still formulating a response to my last couple of blogs about religion. It's coming, I swear.
A prisoner being released because a prison board feels they are truly reformed does not bother me nearly as much as someone who is being released merely because we're out of room in our prisons.
I believe that even someone serving a life sentence can be reformed...especially if they pick up a trade/degree or are going to have a change of environment once they're released.
I think capital punishment needs major reforms, especially in Texas. I just heard another story on the news last week about a man who was finally found "not guilty" (unequivocally) only 3 days before he had been sentenced to death. He'd spent 25 years of his life in prison. I think way too many innocent people slip through the cracks. For another angle, have you ever seen "Dancer in the Dark?"
That I have. Extremely sad movie. I try (but usually fail) not to let pathos dictate my morals...especially when it's based on an unlikely scenario from a movie. That's the same way I felt about The Life of David Gale...only in that one he was an accomplice to suicide and planned his own death...so I don't see how it proves that capital punishment doesn't work.
I read Dead Man Walking, and it gave me pause about the issue. It was saddening to read about these men before they were put to death -- and their education level/contriteness/circumstances by which they were charged, etc. But at the same time I was struck by the fact that none of them really felt sorrow for what they had done...just sorry that "somehow" their victim died and "somehow" they were being charged for it.
Also, I was bothered by the fact that the author never interviewed the family of the victim...or tried to evoke sympathy for them (in order to be objective)...she merely points out that they don't want to talk to her and presents them as bloodthirsty.
When it comes down to it, the entire legal system is flawed: those people with money will get a better trial than those without...and minorities are more often given harsher punishments than white people. These flaws are not isolated to capital punishment, however, and capital punishment antagonists often try and make it seem that way....
Post a Comment