Intellectual VS Emotional Struggle With Death Penalty
wpedon id=8560

About the Author

author photo

Ohg Rea Tone is all or nothing. He is educated and opinionated, more clever than smart, sarcastic and forthright. He writes intuitively - often disregarding rules of composition. Comment on his posts - he will likely respond with characteristic humor or genuine empathy. He is the real-deal.

See All Posts by This Author

Intellectual VS Emotional Struggle With Death Penalty

feature photo

I am not a great intellectual liberal – just an average intellect liberal.  I try to understand issues at practical and ethical perspectives.  For instance, it is unethical to bomb cities – but I agree that Harry Truman was right to use the A-Bomb for extremely practical reasons – he avoided the imminent invasion of Japan and saved about half a million America soldiers lives.  These conflicts of values haunt our lives.  State sanctioned Death Penalties serve only punishment – thus I cannot see the practical application that overrides the ethical violation.

Another example of ethics conflict – most of us Americans agree that we will not personally kill someone else.  Most of us American agree that we have the right to defend our home.  My bedroom is on the second floor of my house.  If I hear something in the night, like maybe someone is moving around down stairs, I call out from the top of my stairs, “I am calling the police.  You better get out of my house.”  My hope is that the burglar will just leave.  But if the burglar does not leave, and my grandchildren are staying overnight, and the burglar starts up the stairs – I am prepared to defend the top of the stairs.  None of really know what we might do in that circumstance – but I believe I could actually take another’s life in defense of my grandchildren.   Just an example of a time when we might have to weigh one value against another.

State sanctioned executions are a different matter.  There are extremely rare circumstances when a person is on Death Row for anything other than a horrendous crime.  These folks have generally killed wantonly, killed children, or killed police officers – or killed serially.  The point is that people don’t make it to Death Row for anything less than the most horrific of crimes.  But that is not the ethical point.  We must ask ourselves a simple question:  What is the criteria for respecting the life of another human?

Well, what is the criteria?  The respect of human life is held in the highest regard.  Much higher than any other living creature on this planet.  The only criteria for respecting human life is the fact that it is human life.  There are no conditions.  Human life is sacred. There is never justification for destroying an human life.

Okay – so there is the simple intellectual ethical position.  The emotional response is the reason we do not allow family members to sit on juries.  Emotionally – I am just like everyone else – you hurt my grandchild and I will give it back ten fold.  But again, that is why they will not as me to sit on the jury.

Here it is folks, put emotions aside, and give the plain ethical justification for taking a human life.

There Is 1 Response So Far. »

  1. As a Viet-Nam vet,I won’t get into the justification for taking a human life.But I do support the death penalty,after a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.Another but,Only if it is carried out in a reasonable time frame.To me,the only thing served when a person is on “Death Row” for 20+ years and then executed,is vengence.
    If a death sentence is not carried out within a “reasonable” time it should be commuted to life without parole.The problem is,I don’t know what a reasonable time should be.

%d bloggers like this: