I wasn't planning on going here, but I just took a break from the homework to watch an episode of Boston Legal concerning the death penalty. I felt that perhaps before I did anything else today I should express my opinion to whomever will listen to me that the death penalty is barbarous, insane, and unworthy of any "civilized" country.

When I was little I bought into it--there are enough vestiges of the Wild West that it seemed like an apt punishment. Perhaps there was a time when hangings were a deterrent, or necessary due to lack of prison facilities. It was a different time. But even accounting for that, how many people were hung for crimes undeserving of death? I don't think I need to look up statistics to prove the answer is many. Then there were the witch trials--an example not as much of the death penalty gone awry as it is the consequence of allowing the government to kill citizens for crimes. Death as an acceptable punishment leads to abuse.

I think there are people that are dangers to society, serial killers, serial rapists, and pedophiles not least among them. I think, especially in the case of serial killers that there is a definite need to make sure said criminal is never released, never escapes, never hurts anyone again. Why keep someone alive who is beyond rehabilitation? More than that, does embody, to some degree, a degree of evil? But the issue, as it is with so many things of this nature, is how can you be sure? In a movie it's easy--you see everything. The character's thoughts and actions when no one's looking. But the problem is that people are not characters, and characters, no matter how well written, are not people. Perhaps with certain criminal leaders who possess the power to continue to hurt even from behind bars you can have overwhelming evidence, but short of that...how do you know?

Add to that the situation of unfair distribution of the death penalty. Without looking up statistics I know that it is true there are more minorities than whites in U.S. prisons. I also know that more minorities than whites are executed. Is this because minorities are inherently prone to criminal activity? Is it because their crimes are so much more heinous? Somehow I doubt it. And what crimes are deserving of the death penalty? Of life imprisonment without parole? Does a drug-addict who robs a convenience store and shoots the clerk deserve the same punishment as a rich, white man who systematically plans out the death of his wife? What about the guy who discovers his wife having an affair? What about a serial abuser? What about a poor man? Does it not matter why you kill someone or how many you kill? Should you die the moment you kill someone else, regardless of circumstance?

Add to this the propensity for abuse. Once you make it legal to kill people then you have all of these questions being interpreted and answered by judges all over the country, each with different values systems and agendas. Suddenly the crime of killing a little old lady serves as precedence for the execution of an almost retarded kid, addicted to drugs, who didn't know what he was doing.

My point is that so long as the death penalty remains in place our efforts are not towards rehabilitation. To claim they are is a lie and an insult to everyone with intelligence to see otherwise. Our efforts are solely towards punishment--if you do a thing we will make you wish you hadn't. What does that solve? There is the age-old argument of dissuasion; by allowing the death penalty criminals will be adverse to committing particularly heinous crimes. But how has that worked? We have more people in jail than most other countries. Again I'm not going to bother with statistics, but feel free to look them up. We have incredible drug laws, the consequences of which are so over the top compared to the crime as to be laughable. Carrying cocaine, not committing a crime while on cocaine but just possession can land you in jail for as long as rape. Tell me, please, how that makes sense? How can you doing something to your own body possibly be considered as horrific as the violation of someone else's? And yet still, people do drugs. Excellent job on preventing crime with that philosophy.

What I'm saying is that something is incredibly broken in our justice system. More than that, however, we have accepted the death penalty as necessary and even laudable. As with everything there are times when it is no doubt the answer--much like abortion I'm sure there are cases when it is both right and wrong. But like abortion it cannot be legislated. Once it is acceptable the precedence stands to abuse it. Just as once one part of abortion becomes illegal there is precedence to overturn it. And no matter how you feel about the death penalty personally, innocent people have been exonerated--after they were killed. Is it really okay to kill the innocent when a mistake is made? Is our triumph over the "evil" in mankind so total that we can excuse the "minor" mishaps? Does the old argument "nobody is innocent" really justify the continuance of a practice that kills people? Mistakes are made and the wrong person has been and will be executed. Tell me how that is acceptable? Because the greater good outweighs your right to live? If you answered yes I wonder if you would honestly have no objection to your government using you as a suicide bomber...against your will.

The greater good always seems like a good idea until it's us that is being sacrificed.