Walking in the Shadows

Random musings from Warwickshire on life in general... Things that make me laugh, make me cry, things that wind me up beyond all endurance - and everything in between.

Justice has been served? I wonder.

A man convicted of murder from the American state of Utah has been executed by firing squad.

Ok – this in itself is unusual, because most states that have the death penalty opt for lethal injection.

But what makes this case unique (in my opinion) is the attitude of the Attorney General. He used the micro-blogging site twitter to announce the developments in this case.

Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against twitter (ok – it’s just not my choice to put my view on the world into cyberspace) but I find the method of self promotion to be distasteful to say the least.

Aside from the issue of the twitter posts, things like this do make you reassess your own ideas about capitol punishment. I was always of the opinion that killing someone who was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt was right, just even.

Now I'm beginning to wonder. What purpose does this penalty serve? It certainly doesn’t serve as a deterrent, and the people who are in favour of what amounts to state sanctioned murder in America are the same people who are quick enough to cry foul when other countries enforce the death penalty.

Ok – I know that the death penalty in the USA is only imposed after years of appeals and counter appeals, but what happens when the appeal process runs out – the condemned man (or woman, but it’s more usually a man) dies.

But surely there has to be an alternative? It’s been stated that the death penalty is the most expensive option, but state prosecutors still go for it. Why? Because of the publicity that a successful case can bring them.

But does the death penalty bring closure to the victim’s family? I don’t honestly know, but I do know that in the Utah case (which started me thinking about this matter) the relatives of one of the victims pleaded for clemency, whereas the relatives of the other victim were against this.

Is this the right way to go? I don’t know. I get the impression that the idea was to use this as the ultimate deterrent, as in “you kill someone, and we (the state) will kill you”.

But times and attitudes have changed, so may be it’s time to do away with this barbaric option in what is supposed to be a civilised society.

Time to call this quits – it’s nearly time to escape, and I’ve got some travelling to do.

Back when I get the chance…

Karen

Now some things you hold on to - and some you just let go
Seems like the ones that you can't have
Are the ones that you want most

0 comments: