We've all heard the sentence passed down before. It's a point of
great contention in forums everywhere. Should the death penalty be legal? The
first time the death penalty was used, the government that instituted it was using
an "eye-for-an-eye" approach. If someone stole, the offending hand
was cut off. If someone murdered, then they were executed. The statement that
the use of the death penalty tries to get across is that human life is sacred.
In that light, how can a human judge pass such a sentence? To be
sure, a judge must make difficult decisions everyday and pass down sentences
that befit the crimes committed, but the death penalty is not one that state
officials – or anyone for that matter – should be charged with making. There
are other alternatives to punish someone for a crime so grievous that the death
penalty could come into play. Life imprisonment is an option.
Then, of course, is the issue with false imprisonment. Say someone
has been falsely accused and convicted. If they were sentenced to death, there
is no way that wrong can be corrected. If that person were interred for life,
then they could be released. There can be no mistakes made when issuing the
death penalty. All humans make mistakes. There is no way around that. And so
there is no way to make absolute sure that someone will not be mistakenly
convicted for a crime they did not commit.
I do not believe that the death penalty should be used. The margin
for error is too great; you can not undo death. There is no chance for a
retrial to correct wrongs if they are made. I do not feel that one human being
has the right to decide whether or not another human being should live or die.
This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, http://www.joshuapondlaw.com.
