First off, the idea here is to pose a question, so I want to advise readers that this is not intended as a full-fledged debate on the pros and cons of the death penalty. That is a very broad argument that is far too large in scope for a piece of this size. Rather, this is simply a question regarding the impact of the presence of a death penalty in any society. This is something I’ve wondered about for years, and while I am a somewhat reluctant advocate of the death penalty as a result, the question has never undermined my sincere belief that there are some people who should be evicted from life in general. Regardless, I’m curious how others might respond to the query I speak of.
First off, the idea here is to pose a question, so I want to advise readers that this is not intended as a full-fledged debate on the pros and cons of the death penalty. That is a very broad argument that is far too large in scope for a piece of this size. Rather, this is simply a question regarding the impact of the presence of a death penalty in any society. This is something I’ve wondered about for years, and while I am a somewhat reluctant advocate of the death penalty as a result, the question has never undermined my sincere belief that there are some people who should be evicted from life in general. Regardless, I’m curious how others might respond to the query I speak of.
Simply put, once you introduce the death penalty to a society, are you not communicating to the populace that under the right circumstances murder is acceptable? Can you utilize the death penalty as a punitive measure without leading people to believe that (under the right conditions) a homicide is permissible? If so, is it not inevitable that at some point members of the society in question will decide to remove the middle man from the proceedings?
It would be absurd to argue that all murders within this hypothetical scenario would be “unsanctioned” executions, yet perhaps the very notion of murder is easier to swallow in a society where the governing body commits such acts in the best interest of the populace. Additionally, under the right circumstances some members of society may in fact see themselves as righteous executioners who are only doing what their leaders would do. Though this might seem elementary to some, the question remains: does incorporating murder into the framework of a society via the death penalty make it impossible to present murder to the populace as an unforgivable crime?
I suppose one could also introduction the notion of military and police activity as murder, but for the time being I’m focusing on the death penalty alone. Does such a measure set a precedent for murder as a part of the society as opposed to an utterly reprehensible action?
I honestly believe that it does, but I don’t see any viable alternatives in some cases, so I will close this piece with an acknowledgement of my support for the death penalty despite any lingering concerns.
Please feel free to share your thoughts.
photo found on http://www.inquisitr.com
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed are soley of the author and do not represent RVA Magazine.
