The Hartford Courant writes this concerning the death sentence of Steven Hayes:
It is wrong to take a life, except in self-defense. What, then, justifies a civilized society taking someone's life? Revenge on this twisted individual? Is that the call from our better nature?
The Courant is correct to say that revenge is not in our better nature. However the death penalty is not a sentence that exist for the purpose of revenge. The argument for death is, as the Courant says, a justified measure in self-defense. When there are less murders with the death penalty, it does become necessary and therefore justified. The Courant is right to assert revenge-as-justice is wrong, the problem is it's a straw-man argument.
The Courant continues:
It's hard to know, even after the lengthy trial, if Mr. Hayes really comprehends the enormity of his vile acts. If his warped mental capacity blocks his awareness — if he is crazy, to put it bluntly — then he would be unfairly killed. If he does have some recognition that he committed one of the worst crimes in Connecticut's history, then putting him out of his misery would almost be doing him a favor. Isn't it better that he should live with the consequences of his act?
The first part is an ancillary but redundant argument nonetheless. Certainly The Courant will not say the death penalty is fair in cases when the murderer knew what he was doing, since in their view the sentence is imposed unfairly to begin with. The second part however raises a question in that if the purpose is to enact the worse possible punishment we could instill on a murderer, to what do we attribute this want? No, lets not "put him out of his misery" lets make sure he lives a long time with it. This has less to do with a just sentence and more to do providing the greatest amount of pain. Isn't that what vengence is all about?
Comments
As a Conservative i'm not in favor of the death penalty. I'm in the minority with people in my political faction. But this story about this guy in CT makes my blood boil. Truly a crazed individual.
Personally, if anyone harmed any of my loved ones I might want them drawn and quartered. The society, I live in doesn't do that anymore. I don't think they're wrong.
The society I live in will take a persons life. Do the perpetrators deserve it? Sometime yes and sometimes no. In the Connecticut case they seem to deserve it. Will it answer anything? I don't think so. The operative word is "seem". One the the hardest Christian tenets is "Judge not lest ye too be judged."
I guess this means we get to play word games with the "critic". After all he "KNOWS" things.
For a while there, I was agreeing with my nemesis. Then the Liberal starts in with his Lib bs. It seems very weird to hear a Lib talk about "Christian tenets". Maybe they (the Libs) like to "use and quote" only when it's convenient? ... ...... Then go back to the typical Jane Fonda mindset and hope for more big Go-ment hand-out stuff to head there way. ...Dumb.
The death penalty is truly a sin. It's better to let 100 guilty people go free than to prosecute and convict one inocent man! Our great nation has already executed one innocent person so, all futures convicts should be locked-up for life. Maybe Hayes only needed zanax and therapy!
usefull fool bobbling out bc I KNOW things too!
What does, 'the critic "KNOWS" things' mean ?????
I don't know what that means!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!