The death penalty, or also known as capital punishment, is the execution of a person who has committed certain crimes. This trial on the death penalty aims, rather than providing statistics on the countries that have applied it, or which apply the death penalty today, to present a personal perspective on this.
Many of us sometimes feel disgust when we hear about the death penalty, because it involves taking a human being’s life. But many of us too feel that this is a very good alternative to many of the ills that afflict us today, to reduce the levels of violence of criminals.
But is the death penalty morally acceptable? Let’s not say if it is legal, because legality can be variable, by amending the Political Constitution of each country and, although it is true that in Latin America very few countries apply the death penalty for serious crimes, it is also true that it could legislate on it, so that it would apply to murderers, rapists, kidnappers, or similar crimes.
What to do before taking the death penalty alternative?
In countries like Colombia, criminals continue to terminate, kill, steal, extort, etc., precisely because they know that the law is very lax, and that the judge will set them free in much of the cases. And that’s the capital failure. I wonder if the leaders of the country feel good about all this, whether to create that atmosphere of fear, of displeasure in the collective, is what they propose. One is often afraid to go out on the street, one does not know when his death can come by a violent act, by a robbery, etc.
What to do then? We have already seen that the first factor that causes permissiveness in violence is lax, mild, insignificant, the greatest of the times incarcerated and that only in serious crimes is the person taken to prison. But does jail regenerate people? The answer is a blunt NO. Criminals learn more crime from others; it’s like who goes to school, but in this case the school is among criminals, then you learn more crime, more sophistication in crime.
One proposal that I found interesting, although not applicable, is that the offender should be taken to a farm, where he can be in contact with nature, so that he can work the land, so that he can do something productive with his hands, so that he eats of that that sowing and harvesting; likewise the criminal received a treatment in underlying psychology, where he was taught to value his seed and to transform his psyche. And this is quite interesting and should be done to see what is achieved. I think it would get a 90% favorable result, compared to what the prison achieves.
But what about those who don’t work this procedure? Of course they do, for them the death penalty. There can be no evasiveness or hesitation in this regard. It is a rotten fruit that no longer serves society.
Life is sacred
This is an argument that is usually heard by those who are not in favour of the death penalty; those pseudo moralists don’t even know what they’re talking about. But let’s look at it this way. Water is also sacred and an expression of life. But a clean, crystalline water, suitable for consumption, able to hydrate without side effects. A rotten water does not serve, we cannot give him any kind of worship and must be discarded because it causes disease.
The life of a serial killer is no longer life, because life is dignity, life is to fill with meaning, life is to discover and enhance our faculties, life is to love. That’s life. The opposite is just an empty shell that moves, that has no remorse, that has no value for life. That’s just an appearance of life.
When an individual has reached that level of evil and degeneration, I believe that the death penalty should be applied. Life, which is sacred, does not attack life; life, by itself, seeks to repel that which threatens its existence.
With regard to the thought that only God can give and take away life; we must know that it is only a concept, that we cannot prove the existence of God and, if it exists, he has been the one who has desecrated life, because our life comes to an end, because it has no continuity; because species prey on each other and die. From this point of view, life is not sacred, and one only fights for survival. Life itself fights for its own survival, not because one of them commands or wants it, but because it is.
With regard to mechanisms, of course, they should be painless as much as possible; so lethal injection or chamber of some painless gas could come perfectly. There must be no electric chair or gallows.
June 20, 2019
- ← Pixar presents ‘Soul’, the new original movie from the director of ‘Up’ and ‘upside down’ which we will see in 2020
- Critical essay about education →