@Ruth frankly I think death penalty abolition needs to come from the federal level regardless of popularity - unfortunately if you wait for it to become socially unpopular, abolition will just never happen. Capital punishment has remained consistently popular in the UK but it was still abolished despite public lack of support for abolition (this was VERY controversial when the Moors Murders happened only a short time after abolition, as many called for the death penalty in that case).
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that the US legislature works in the same way as the UK or that it would be easy - I realise that it would likely be due to a Supreme Court ruling or similar.
I was thinking about this phenomena where the family of the victim are said to have been failed because they had no closure.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
While generally against the death penalty, I am worried by how many cases there have been in the UK recently where a seriously mentally ill person has gone on the rampage with a knife or other weapon (not guns much here of course). And some horrific child abuse cases culminating in murder, like the appalling Sarah Sharif case. It does seriously make me doubt my belief.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
While generally against the death penalty, I am worried by how many cases there have been in the UK recently where a seriously mentally ill person has gone on the rampage with a knife or other weapon (not guns much here of course). And some horrific child abuse cases culminating in murder, like the appalling Sarah Sharif case. It does seriously make me doubt my belief.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
I think there are two kind of objections. In the first it is about process; the length of time, the capacity of the system to be corrupt or mistaken, the way that it disproportionately falls on certain groups and not others.
The second I think is about a philosophy. Even if it was possible to be absolutely sure that one had the right person, is it still justified?
I was thinking about this phenomena where the family of the victim are said to have been failed because they had no closure.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
There is a body of research that suggests the death penalty does not give closure to the vast majority of victims' families, but that the drawn out appeals processes re-traumatise them.
George Orwell's essay, 'A hanging', was very influential to my thinking about these things oh so many years ago.
For a Christian death is not the end and is a path to redemption. But saying this of course cuts no ice with those who believe death is extinction.
There's no 'right' answer ....
Comments
I'm not, by the way, suggesting that the US legislature works in the same way as the UK or that it would be easy - I realise that it would likely be due to a Supreme Court ruling or similar.
Which is interesting on one level because the whole process is structured as a ghastly moment of theatre performed in front of the victim's family. If it was about closure they could presumably satisfy themselves that the murder was dead afterwards without the theatre.
I was also thinking about this notion of vengeance and justice and how the victims often express themselves as wanting to see the offender suffer. It is hard to argue that in horrific cases like this there is immense suffering as the offender will be hovering in that state between life and death with horrific injuries.
I'm starting to think: Jesus didn't speak out against the death penalty, did he? He didn't tell the thieves at Calvary that they shouldn't be there?
I think there are two kind of objections. In the first it is about process; the length of time, the capacity of the system to be corrupt or mistaken, the way that it disproportionately falls on certain groups and not others.
The second I think is about a philosophy. Even if it was possible to be absolutely sure that one had the right person, is it still justified?
There is a body of research that suggests the death penalty does not give closure to the vast majority of victims' families, but that the drawn out appeals processes re-traumatise them.
For a Christian death is not the end and is a path to redemption. But saying this of course cuts no ice with those who believe death is extinction.
There's no 'right' answer ....