On Friday, June 17 of 2010 Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by firing squad in Utah. This makes him the third person executed in this way in the United States
It is no surprise that the death penalty is a hot button for controversy in today's world. Some see it as barbaric, others as true poetic justice. Tempers flare high whenever the subject comes up, and understandably so. To judge whether a person lives or dies is to cross a line that many believe should never be crossed.
This method of execution crosses a line of barbarism for many, especially when the generally more accepted method of today is death via lethal injection. The execution is so extreme that one of the five gunmen is given a blank shell so as to give them the comfort of “reasonable doubt” as to who actually shot and killed a man.
For those in favor of the death penalty, they see it all as justice in the most basic and biblical way. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” and a life for a life (or lives). Gardner was sentenced to death after killing an attorney in a courthouse while escaping from a hearing where he was charged with murdering a bartender. Is it not fair; is it not poetic justice that someone who kills in cold blood should lose his or her life in return?
Opposing the death penalty are those who find the concept of killing another person to be appalling and does nothing but continue a never-ending cycle of violence. Some believe that being confined to a jail cell is punishment enough, leaving the killer to brood in his or her personal demons, surrounded by all of the other damned of society in their cages. Is that not a more brutal punishment? Left powerless to hurt other innocents outside their walls of confinement?
Those in favor of corporal punishment argue that jail is nowhere near adequate punishment for the crime. This person, this killer is allowed to live despite taking innocent lives. Their life in confinement, their food and water, their television and internet all paid for by taxpayers so they can live humanely. Some see the lives of these convicted criminals and see them as living in relative luxury. What they lack in contact with the outside world, they are provided through use of the internet and other media.
Meanwhile, those that argue jail time is the stronger punishment see this in a very different light. Despite being convicted of horrible crimes, the prisoners are just as much people as those outside the jail. They too deserve the right to live, but they must live within the walls of their punishment and horrendous acts. There are people outside of jail that do nothing but stay in their room, eat, watch television and live through the internet, but such a depressing lifestyle is beneath the potential a free citizen of the United States has. Such a depressing lifestyle would be the peak of existence for a killer spending his or her life in jail.
A firing squad, electric chair, gas, hanging, and even lethal injection are all methods of execution once or currently used in this country, all barbaric in their own right. Some cry foul if the needle used during the lethal injection, putting the convicted to death in his or her sleep, is not sterilized. Others cry that they should suffer more than being permitted to simply fall asleep. Some cheer at murderer killed violently by gunshots into the chest. Others balk that modern society would stoop to such a barbaric method of punishment.
So where do we draw the line? Is there even a line that needs to be drawn? Is it easier to get the ultimate revenge on the killer of a loved one; or is it easier to move on knowing that the guilty party will never again be free and suffer a slow death in jail? Momentary satisfaction won't bring the dead back, and allowing the damned to live may never bring personal resolution.
Who are we to judge what is right and wrong?
---------------------------------------------------
Submitted to Star Tribune of Minnesota on June 22nd without response.
Someone once told me that "Jesus can redeem all things, except suicide," (Or death in this case). That gives me hope that all people have a chance to be counted as one of the redeemed. However, that doesn't mean we (society) shouldn't be discerning and wise with regard to people who have committed heinous crimes. Our society has a responsibility to make sure everybody within that society have a chance for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Those who take that chance away from others should not be able to continue that course. So, "who are we to judge what is right and wrong?" Maybe we are not asking the correct question.
ReplyDeleteThat was a great article Will!!! Really! I like how you went through both sides of the story and at the end, we are left wondering, "who are we to judge right and wrong?" In my opinion, you're right to ask that question. It's easy to quickly judge but when you really sit down and consider all the factors, it's hard to label...it then becomes even more difficult to push your morals on another individual. Way to bring up a difficult topic! I wish the Startribune would have published it because it probably would have generated a lot of opinions! The opinions pages are my favorite!! :)
ReplyDelete