Wednesday February 4, 1998 Langley, B.C.
by Noreen Gale
|
|
On last night's evening news, we were informed and enlightened with complete coverage of the execution of Karla Faye Tucker by the Texas justice system. From the interviews which aired, we are expected to conclude and believe that citizens of Texas favour execution as the preferred punishment for the crime of premeditated murder. Some Canadians believe that Texans are right and would have capital punishment reinstated in this country. However, before jumping on to the 'yes' or 'no' death penalty bandwagon, one should consider two points. First, Is punishment the main consideration when dealing with murderers; and second, should deterrents be as much a consideration in penalizing criminals as punishment? Another question which should not be overlooked is: Does the evidence support the belief that capital punishment reduces the crime of premeditated murder? What is the purpose of capital punishment as a consequence for premeditated murder? Is it strickly punishment, or is it also intended as a deterrent to those who may contemplate murder as a way of resolving their conflict with others? If the only purpose of capital punishment is to punish those who take another's life, then it is effective. After all, death is the ultimate punishment for taking the life of another. However, one cannot help but ask: What makes the executioner's action different? It is argued that the executioner is only carrying out orders; but what are those orders? The orders are, that after careful consideration - premeditation, to take the life of another person. Clearly, the question of one's authority is a deviation from the central issue of the taking of a life. If capital punishment is also intended to serve as a deterrent, the evidence of its usefulness is somewhat more ambiguous. According to today's Vancouver Sun, "Texas ... has the busiest execution chamber in the U.S." since capital punishment was reinstated in Texas in the 1970s. If capital punishment serves as a deterrent to premeditated murder, then reinstating it in Texas should have caused murders to drop significantly. According to news casts last night, this drop has not happened. Apparently, Texas has more per capita premeditated murders than any other state in the U.S. So, if capital punishment is not the solution to preventing or discouraging 1st degree murder - the official charge for premeditated murder - which appears to be the case, how do we stifle the public cry for it? Are we satisfied that capital punishment can be used strickly as punishment? If that is the case, how do we exempt some people who take the life of another from the same punishment? People who can be included in this catagory are executioners who follow the orders of their superiors, who incidently, are also accomplices in the taking of another's life, doctors who practice euthanasia and those who kill others in the act of military duty. There is no question that the issue of capital punishment is one which is supported or opposed more on emotionalism than on analysis. The pain suffered by family and friends of those who have met a violent end at the hands of another is as endless as the lose which they have suffered. Their feeling of pain and rage is understandable; no punishment can alleviate the pain or loss they constantly feel; neither can these people, who most often cry out for reinstating the death penalty, be expected to debate the merits or shortcomings of it without injecting into the debate their own pain and sense of loss. All people, particularly those who have suffered the loss of a family member or a friend, are entitled to know that society has considered all aspects of punishment and deterrents for actions that are considered unacceptable. An open public debate, without interference from those who wish to cultivate political correctness or any other agenda is the only way a society can come to terms with the issue of capital punishment and all of its ramifications. |