According to the Oxford Dictionary, "fair" is defined as 'without cheating, or use of foul advantages, in accordance with rules and standards. The definition of "just" is "based on or behaving in regards to what is fair, or fair to the specific society/community". You can clearly see these two words converge. In fact they are synonyms to one another...however, the word "humane" is often used with the words "fair" or "just" in issues like the death penalty but if one explores this concept further -- it is quite different from both these words.
Humane means "having or showing acts of compassion, kindness, altruistic behaviour, etc". As you can clearly see, being humane is connected to one's emotions. Meanwhile being just or fair has to do with legal, dejure/defacto rules set by society. These social orders mold people to think what is fair, or just. Humanity is about morality. In the case discussed in the last post ( Ronald Post Case), is it safe to say that the offender (Ronald Post) is manipulating society's empathy and "humanity" to cheat his way out of paying his debt to society? He killed a woman. According to the law he had a fair trial and was judged by a jury of peers who examined the evidence presented and base on dejure rules set by legislators sent him to death row, where he was to await execution. However, now he and his lawyers are saying that it is inhumane to kill him because the methods they use for executions are far too painful for him to withstand...BECAUSE OF HIS WEIGHT.
This angered many, many people, especially the family and friends of the woman who was killed. Right now the decision to have him executed or not is being debated. If they were to accept his request and keep him in prison that would not be fair, nor just. Yes, it would be humane. However, how is that "fair" when the material facts presented led the jurors to decide that Ronald Post was guilty of his crime? They are ignoring all legal and defacto policies set up in place by society -- and opting to exercise the decision to be "humane". One can say, "he killed a woman, he should die", a "life for a life" concept....that is (in some people's opinions) fair. That is one way of achieving justice-especially for the relatives and close friends of the victim.
However, would all of society see that as fair? Some people may say "you shouldn't sink down to a criminal's level and kill someone as well...Imagine what that looks like to children and other people who look up to the government for support and fair treatment"....or something along those lines. These people also have a very interesting point to. Maybe, to create justice we should banish the death penalty...does the death penalty even achieve any form of justice? According to these people, and these sets of opinions, no it does not.
According to the certain US state law, an individual who does commit such acts, should be sent to be executed. In accordance to the CURRENT dejure policies, the death penalty is fair. The definition of fair states: "... in accordance with rules and standards." Well, the law does state the death penalty should be used if one commits such acts and this is proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, we are a compassionate society in general we seem to be unwilling to allow anyone to be executed unless all avenues of innocence have been explored and appealed. And even after these avenues have been exhausted, there are those who disagree, using the "humane" argument. Is it humane? Because of the opinion I stated above ( Some people may say "you should treat terrible crimes with the right to take a life) individuals who believe this opinion is right obviously have compassion for the offender and feel like death is not the right way to solve the problem. Keyword: compassion. They clearly feel sympathy, and are emotionally affected by capital punishment.
To conclude my findings on this aspect of capital punishment, agents of socialization such as family, the government, law and media portray the death penalty as "fair", these same agents can argue that it is NOT humane. Those who stand for the death penalty are all using legal and dejure arguments to support their views. Meanwhile those who do not support capital punishment use compassion and emotionally appealing arguments.
Work Cited:
Death Row. Inmate seeks parole in innocence claim unrelated to weight. (2012, December, 7-9) The Associated Press. (Pg. 14)
Gray, James. "Facing the Facts on Death Penalty". Digital Commons at Loyola Law School. 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment