• Home
• Noticias
• Opinión
• Multimedia
• Interactivo
• Bitblioteca
• Servicios

In the last few years we have heard a great deal about capital punishment. First there was the death by lethal injection of convicted murderer Karla Faye Tucker in Texas in 1998. Her execution was followed three years later by that of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh — an event that may have come as a Pyrrhic victory to some death penalty proponents, as McVeigh himself stated he preferred to die rather than spend the rest of his life in prison. Later that year the question arose as to whether Andrea Yates, a Texas woman who drowned her five children in a bathtub, should be put to death (she was instead sentenced to life in prison in March of 2002).

What was often mentioned throughout the reporting of these incidents and the debate they sparked was that the United States is one of the only Western countries that still executes its citizens. At this point every nation in Western European has abolished the death penalty, as have Canada, Australia, New Zealand and most of Latin America

In my essay “Is the West the Best?” I describe the abolition of capital punishment as a Western phenomenon. Since then, however, I’ve been forced to modify my views. Though the West still leads the way in this regard, distaste for executions is by no means confined to that region. An international Gallup poll, for example, found the highest level of disapproval for capital punishment in Latin America and Western Europe (nearly 60% opposed in both places). Not far behind them, though, was Africa, with 43% of respondents disagreeing with the death penalty. This figure was actually higher than the 27% reported for North America. Another largely unknown reservoir of anti-death penalty sentiment may be the South Pacific. One website described how the son of a prominent Samoan public figure forgave his father’s killer. The site explained that for many Pacific Islanders, the greatest punishment for a crime may not be death but separation from one’s family through imprisonment (a feeling with which undoubtedly many Westerners could identify). Thus the West does not have the corner on misgivings about executions.

Nonetheless, the United States’ position as practically the only Western country to maintain the death penalty is frequently cited by American abolitionists (individuals and groups who want to abolish capital punishment) as a reason for ending it. This in addition to the arguments that the death penalty does not bring the victim back to life, does not reduce crime, is irreversible if an innocent person is executed, and causes the state to stoop to the moral level of the murderer.

I’ll make my stand clear from the start. I oppose capital punishment, not because it’s not “Western” (not everything the West does is right) but for the other reasons mentioned above. Nevertheless, many death penalty opponents leave me cold. Sometimes it seems they really do care more about the murderer than his or her victim. This is evident from the fact that certain abolitionists frown not only on capital punishment but on life imprisonment as well. While some, like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, support the alternative of life in prison with no chance of parole, others find this equally unacceptable. Amnesty International, for instance, recently criticized the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles’ decision to commute the death sentence of a young man convicted of first-degree murder to lifelong incarceration with no parole. Since he committed his crime at the age of seventeen, jailing him permanently violated the Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to Amnesty. All this makes me want to scream out, “Where is the victim in all this?”

Some anti-death penalty activists also believe beefing up prison sentences for murderers would pave the way for executions. A few years back there was a discussion in Canada on whether or not to introduce consecutive sentencing, a process whereby an individual convicted of more than one offense would serve each sentence one after the other as opposed to all at the same time (concurrent sentencing). The Church Council on Justice and Corrections, a coalition of several religious denominations, waded into the debate. The group described consecutive sentencing as “cruel and unusual punishment” and claimed it was merely a stepping stone towards reestablishing the death penalty in Canada.

In reality, some evidence suggests the implementation of consecutive sentencing and/or life imprisonment with no parole might actually diminish support for capital punishment. Polls done in the United States, for example, show the percentage of people favouring executions falls considerably if life imprisonment with no possibility of parole is offered as an option. Indeed, some individuals may support the death penalty by default — because they believe that without it, dangerous criminals may be set free to wreak havoc once again. In the words of one American deputy sheriff and corrections officer, “We do not relish executions. We are forced into it.”

I don’t agree with a “get tough” approach to all crimes. For instance, I would take drug taking/dealing/trafficking off the books entirely. Not only is the “war on drugs” essentially unwinnable, but it takes up prison space better used for truly dangerous criminals. And there’s a good point to be made that restorative justice and rehabilitation might be the least costly and most humane alternatives for non-violent offenders.

Ironically, certain abolitionists and “get tough” proponents may have more in common with one another than either would care to admit. Both seem to place all crimes — and all criminals — on the same level. For the former, Canadian serial killer Paul Bernardo and the man who steals a car are equally capable of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Jailing either man permanently is “cruel.” The latter on the other hand sees both men as hardened criminals who belong in a maximum security prison. The abolitionist does not want to admit that while the car thief may indeed be a candidate for rehabilitation, Paul Bernardo most certainly is not. Conversely, the “get tough” enthusiast can’t acknowledge that throwing the car thief into a jail with inmates like Bernardo is probably in no one’s best interests.

There’s also the question of appropriate punishment of criminals. At times the words “punishment” and “retribution” appear to leave a bitter taste in some abolitionists’ mouths. Columnist Cathy Young, whom I quote in the essay “Is the West the Best?”, has addressed the issue of the death penalty in some of her articles. While she formerly supported it for first-degree murder, on the grounds that the penalty should fit the crime, more recently she has expressed a more ambivalent attitude towards the practice. In an article entitled “McVeigh to Macbeth,” she suggests many abolitionists fail to recognize the “legitimacy of retribution… as an element of justice” (though she adds that death is not the only way to exact retribution). If they did, she asserts, new ground might be broken in the debate over capital punishment.

I don’t always agree with Ms. Young’s opinions (such as her view of the West as the pinnacle of human achievement), but on the legitimacy of retribution I have to second her. First of all, abolitionists would probably gain more public support for their cause if they spoke out as fervently about the need to punish wrongdoers as they do about the immorality of executions. Such an approach would be good not only in practical terms but in moral ones as well. Just as anti-abortionists have the moral obligation to advocate reliable birth control in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies, opponents of the death penalty have an ethical responsibility to ensure that an adequate substitute for it is in place. In my view, that might include the premise that if you deliberately take another’s life without a valid reason (self-defense, for example), it’s not too much to ask you to give up your freedom permanently.

An interesting editorial appeared in the Nicaraguan daily La Prensa (The Press) in January of 2001. It discussed the case of Bernardo Tercero, a Nicaraguan man sentenced to death in Texas for the fatal shooting of a high school teacher. The editorial opposed Tercero’s execution, on the grounds that “the state should not hold the power of life and death over people” and that capital punishment is “not part of our culture” (it was unclear whether “our culture” referred to Nicaraguan culture specifically or Western culture as a whole). Yet the editorial didn’t fall into the trap of seeing criminals as victims. The writer argued that Tercero’s insistence he killed his victim by accident didn’t hold water; Tercero committed his crime during an armed robbery, and somebody who carries out such a robbery is more than willing to murder anyone who gets in his or her way. The state of Texas should punish Tercero, the editorial concluded, by keeping him in jail for the rest of his life.

The editorial came as a breath of fresh air for me. Yes, I oppose capital punishment, but I’m tired of much of the abolitionist movement’s laissez-faire attitudes towards crime and disregard for murder victims and their families. An approach that took into account both the rights of the murderer and the victim would truly allow us, as Cathy Young suggests, to break new ground on the issue of capital punishment.

Publicidad

Buscador Bitblioteca

Juegos Gratis DragonBall Kart   Fórmula Racer           Ben 10 Corredor   Copa Toon           Mario Bros   Sudoku 3D