The Death Penalty Debate

The recent execution of Troy Davis in Georgia was quite controversial.

The prosecution had no physical evidence linking the suspect to the murder of an
off-duty police officer in 1998.  Davis was present when the scuffle ensued in an Atlanta
parking lot.  But no physical evidence connected him has the trigger man.

Troy Davis was consistently adamant about his innocence in this crime.  After a long
appeals process, the case seemed to fall apart for the prosecution.  Seven out of nine
eye witness recanted their testimonies, with several of them stating that they were pressured,
or coerced by law enforcement.




Despite the growing evidence in his favor, Troy Davis was executed this past September.
Although he had received support from the pope, Amnesty International and over one million petitioners calling for his pardon, he was given the lethal dose of toxins in an injection.

This incident, which was heavily covered in the national media, has made some Americans question
the purpose and civility of the death penalty.

Is it really a deterrent?  Does it make murderers think twice?

There are many angles to look at in this process.  Many proponents of capital punishment support it as
appropriate justice.  They claim that some people are simply too dangerous to be part of our society.  They cite rapists, murderers, and pedophiles to be the types that should have their rights revoked and their lives terminated for the safety of society.

Some of these capital punishment supporters also cite the grievance that tax payers have to support these criminals while they serve their terms.  Food, shelter, television, gym equipment - all of these features of prison  (not to mention the cost of staffing these institutions) are paid for by law-abiding citizens.  They do not feel that this is just situation.  Why should we, as a society, pay to sustain the life of someone who has no respect for human life?



Then there are those who wish to abolish the death penalty in America.  All of Western Europe and most developed nations in the world today have scrapped the death penalty in their countries.  Capital punishment opponents have been protesting the act of execution as far back as the Enlightenment in Europe.  They claim that civilized societies have no right to take the life of any person.  It is a human rights issue.  Opponents also say that, since our justice system is imperfect, there is a chance that we are executing innocent people.  They also make that claim that putting criminals on death row is actually more expensive, when one considers the costs of the lengthy appeals process.

They also tend to support prisoner reform.  As humans, these folks can be rehabilitated in jail and given a second chance.  They support life sentences, where a prisoner is able to live out their days in dignity.  They may find spirituality, they may repent, and they may be able to make positive change.



The feud goes on...

Here are the big questions:

Is it worth executing 50 guilty criminals, if one innocent person must be executed as well?


Should states have the power to take a life?


What is the difference between  justice and revenge?  Is it a thin line?


Can people be reformed in prison?  Are there some people that cannot conform to society?


And what is to be done with the mentally ill?  Are they an exception to the execution rule?


How does race play a role in legal decisions?  Are we living in a post-racial society?   Equal justice?