Life: Is it ours to take? (Part II)

Some may say that criminals should deal with the consequences of their crimes and the state must make examples out of the few that are imprisoned so that criminals will be vigilant and the rest of society would feel pleased that the government is strict on such offenders. I feel that this may be a false sense of hope rather than a reality, as crime levels have never drastically responded to stricter laws.

For crime control the answer is simply, ‘attack the causes of it’. Crime is not a result of lenient laws. Crime is a cause of poverty, prejudice, greed, discrimination and sometimes even lack of education.

The implementation of the death sentence may only result in two things. One, Crime would reduce insignificantly and may be even momentarily and two, it would result in a generation of smarter criminals.

Some may ask me why the death penalty would not affect crime rates. Everyone fears death. Well it is simple. The death sentence can only apply to a few crimes which may be considered either unacceptably malicious or crimes against the state. Now this only constitutes a very small portion of crime and therefore would not make a significant enough dent on crime. However, improving the lifestyles of so many unemployed people in the ghettos and slums would result in a far greater outcome in terms of crime control and social responsibilities.

¥

If you are under the misguided conception that death is a more intimidating outcome for criminals than life imprisonment, then let me prove to you how the death sentence would not affect a criminal’s mindset.

Ω

An individual who willingly commits a crime which is punishable by death is quite well aware of the consequences of his actions. In this situation, the criminal is conscious that if he is convicted his life is thereby ended, whether it be by his hanging or a life sentence. Therefore, the death penalty in its self poses no barrier for such a degree of crime as the alternative punishment would be no easier to bear. In which ever circumstance, the criminal would never pose a threat to society again.

Of course there are other trivial problems such as the risk of an innocent man being sentenced to death, however minute the possibility maybe and the true, genuine reformation of a convict. Although these situations are inconsequential and almost never occur, I must say that if a democratic government lets a few of us fall in between the cracks, then the system is flawed, and lives cannot fall victim to such follies.

Human life is not to be tampered with. If we claim the right to the lives of others in the name of what we think justice to be, then it only proves our ignorance. It is not for us to decide who lives and dies and for what reasons they shall. Wielding that sort of power is beyond our reach. I believe that the greatest error committed by human kind is trusting that life and all its contents, begins and ends with us.