r e d.chilipepper

an eye for an eye?

i've been following this tookie williams thing with a morbid fascination. it all started in high school when our us government history teacher had us debate pro and con for the death penalty. for me, it's one of those things i've never been able to take a strong stance on. i can see both sides of the issue, and my spiritual and intellectual mind are often opposed on this issue.

research has shown that execution is an expensive, and often, ineffective and inaccurate process. repeals can take an average of over 10 years, and it obviously doesn't seem to work as a deterrent to heinous crimes. so, logistically speaking, the death penalty is not all that effective.

but what i am more concerned of is the idea of causing the punisher to suffer. most victims of crime want the perpretrator to suffer an equal, if not more amount, and i believe that even though justice lauds ideals of societal protection and possible recidivism, underlying the law is a fundamental human need to see punishment, and hence suffering, equally meted out.

i am guilty of admitting this, but i often wonder if death is a equal punishment for some of the crimes committed. i'm not saying it's easy, but i know someone who is in life for prison, and it's a terrible punishment. it's daunting. he entered at 18, and the knowledge of his never possibly having parole for 70 years, confined in a small cell, never interacting with world or knowing what goes on drives him to terrible depths of dispair. some would say that that is a fitting punishment. but if you impose death, the person doesn't have to face his crime, he goes away, he doesn't spend any more time paying for his punishment. perhaps you may say that he values his life, but some say that death is better than lifelong confinement and that even the fear of losing one life is ancillary. afterall, one would not kill if he had fear for his life. it is only those who see life as disposible that are willing to commit those level of crimes. so taking away their lives isn't really a threat, or a loss, or a grievance. it is natural.

but with this issue, comes the question of whose fault it really is. i mean, are any of us responsible for how we are if all we know and all we see is empirically derived? i deal with issues the way my parents deal with them. my temper, my ability to love, my sense of wrong -- they are all derived from my parents. i know not to kill because i never saw it as acceptable. 80% of abusers, for example, were themselves abused. what if a parent never gave the child the skills to deal with things properly, then whose fault is it? if a child kills because he saw his father abuse, is it the child's fault? is it the father's fault if he himself never knew?

where does the responsibility lie? with the rapist? the rapist's father? grandfather? ancestors? where did it all start? and if we are killing a murderer, are we will dealing with the issue at hand? are we really remedying the lack of emotional tools for people to properly deal with things? we may cause the murdered to suffer, but are we really teaching our children and other people suffering how to better cope with their weaknesses?

i don't have any answers. i've been thinking about this a lot lately, and i still don't know who to feel for. i'm not excusing any morally reprehensible behavior. i'm just questioning where it started, and how to really stop it.

and on that note, thank god i have the parents i do.