Even a 7-year-old gets it.
This morning on the way to school, Al Voecks was on the radio doing the news, and his top story was that the 6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court upheld an order releasing death row inmate Paul House.
So Amanda asks, “Mommy what do they do to the people on death row? Do they shoot them?”
When she asks questions, I am pretty straight forward with her to a point. I believe honesty is the best policy, and I think I have a good handle on how to explain things to her at her level.
So I told her, “No, they don’t shoot them, but sometimes they give them a shot of a substance that makes their heart stop.”
Then she asked, “But, wouldn’t that make them just as wrong? Because now they killed somebody, too. So now more people are dead. That’s not right.”
Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?
-
*DNA evidence helped lead the Supreme Court to overturn House’s conviction in the 1985 slaying of Carolyn Muncey in Union County. The high court also ruled House’s jury didn’t hear testimony that could have exonerated him. (From WSIX.com)
Filed under: Current Events, Deep Thoughts, Job, My Child | Tagged: Al Voecks, children's questions, death penalty, lethal injection, Paul House, WSIX
Reminds me of that book All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten. Often the simplest answer is the best.
Besides not making any sense on a philosophical, religious or humanitarian level, capital punishment has been shown to not even be effective or cost-efficient, making it impractical as well.
But sometimes a 7 year old’s answer is as accurate and more to the point, it’s just “not right”.
“Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?”
She should write this in a letter to Dubya. Maybe his head will explode.
Why do we fine people for stealing? Why do we incarcerate people for kidnapping? In each case society has determined a punishment commensurate with the crime. Some crimes warrant the ultimate penalty.
And sometimes, the police and prosecutor’s unwillingness to backtrack from bad evidence lead to the execution or death in jail of innocents. (cough) Like, oh, (cough) Paul House (cough) and folks like that. (cough) The prosecutor has just announced he’s going for a retrial, despite House’s complete vindication by every court involved, hoping that the MS will kill him before he can get out of jail alive. What ultimate penalty will the prosecutor pay?
Well, “anonymous”, while there is certainly a punitive aspect to sentences, the other and probably more important purpose of sentencing is to be a deterrent to others. Since countries that ban capital punishment have lower murder rates, it could certainly be argued that life imprisonment may be a better deterrent. As a society, you get the benefit of standing by the principle that life is sacred and will not be taken (in cold blood). Plus, you get the added bonus of not making an irrevocable mistake like killing an innocent man.
Had the death penalty been imposed on Ted Bundy when he was first captured in Colorado, the murders he committed in Florida, which resulted in him finally being executed, would never have occurred.
There are certain cases where the death penalty is warranted, where the crime is so heinous that the ultimate penalty is called for. Timothy McVeigh? Paul Dennis Reid?
Anon, Ted Bundy is a poor example…he escaped from Colorado…that had nothing to do with whether the death penalty was imposed or not. Once he was caught, he was given the death penalty, and was executed.
My question is…what good does it do to execute anymore? It doesn’t bring the victim back. It does nothing but give the government a chance to flex their muscle and wield the fact that they hold the keys to life and death in their control.
Ted Bundy was not serving life without parole when he escaped - so death penalty vs life without parole isn’t really the issue with that one.
No doubt there are many people that some feel is worth killin’, but who decides? And is it worth taking an innocent life just because it makes us feel better to kill people we don’t think deserve to live? Life without parole serves the same purpose, removes a killer from society, while honoring the principle that life is sacred and potentially allowing a mistake to be corrected.
I wonder if you’d feel differently if it were you who was convicted for a crime you didn’t commit.
If Ted Bundy been put to death, he wouldnt have escaped and those murders in Florida wouldnt have happened. No prison is escape proof and even the most notorious murderer in our state’s history - James Earl Ray - was able to escape for a period of time from Brushy Mountain. Can you gurantee someone convicted of life without parole will never ever escape? Some extreme criminals need to be dealt with permanently.
Prison reform is another issue, but I noticed that you have no comment on people that have been innocently convicted.
Anon, again, your theory has flaws in it. When Ted Bundy escaped, he was serving a sentence for kidnapping, but had not yet been convicted of murder. Kidnapping is not punishable by death, so there’s no way he would’ve been put to death before he escaped in the first place.
Kids are brilliant because they make absurdities simple and they aren’t inhibited.
That statement could be the centerpiece for campaign - good people don’t kill people for killing
Amanda for President.
Reminds of the nine-year-old daughter of my friend who was picketing an abortion clinic and asked, “Daddy, if they’re really killing babies, why are we only carrying signs?”
The flaw in Amanda’s argument is the assumption that all killing is equally bad. I am assuming that Amanda is a budding pacifist as well, because her logic does not allow for the distinction of self-defense or of the state authorizing killing in any sort of war.
Of course there is a qualitative difference between taking an innocent life and a guilty one. Ginger’s follow-up logic (”Why do we kill people who kill people to prove that killing people is wrong?”
is flawed because she assumes that the point of capital punishment is to prove the wrongness of murder. The wrongness of the murder is self-evident, regardless of the punishment imposed. No proponent of capital punishment would suggest otherwise.
The point of capital punishment is that the body politic has decided that certain people who do certain bad things deserve it. People committing crimes in those jurisdictions know the possible consequences (or at least ignorance of the law is no excuse) and are held responsible for making adult decisions in light of this. In other words, to modify the popular phrase, “Don’t do the crime, if it don’t come with time.”
There are occasional innocent convictions. Compared to the overall number of convictions for murder, the number is not significant. A number of states, including the one in which I used to practice law, have built safeguards in the system, especially with regard to the quality of representation (special certified training for capital cases) that must be afforded to the accused. There are innocent convictions for any number of crimes, because there are unscrupulous police and prosecutors out there. However, that fact that there are a few who have misused the system does not make the system itself inherently wrong.
“There are innocent convictions for any number of crimes, because there are unscrupulous police and prosecutors out there.”
Yes, but there is only one punishment that is irreversible.
Wow! That was quite intelligent… a pretty thought provoking sentence though!
Hmmm…