. Throughout history, we have imposed judgments ranging from an eye for an eye to cutting off the hand that performed the crime. At present, our methods of judgments are under question.
Crime, punishment and morality are the threads that weave an uncertain fabric in our justice systems. Throughout history, we have imposed judgments ranging from an eye for an eye to cutting off the hand that performed the crime. In the present day, we have gone from conservatism to liberalism to questioning if any of our methods ever were right for any time in our history.
Innovation is a sign of the times.
Community service is a form of justice that is in vogue. This is usually employed, if the charges amounted to or were pled out to as minor misdemeanors. Druggies as first time minor offenders get to do things like picking up garbage or if you are a celebrity, you might be sentenced to anti drug public service announcements. It only matters to what you plead out and not to what the reality of your habits might be. One judge has ordered a man who shot and injured his dog to walk around town in a dog costume. In previous cases, he sentenced speeders to perform as crossing guards and thugs who damaged a statue of Jesus walk a donkey through the streets. His purpose is to get a person to change their point of view about their crimes. No one has studied if the method works.
Should there be sympathy in the handling of killers?
Recently, it was ruled that the execution of a convicted killer in Florida was mishandled. The death by lethal injection process took a half hour to induce death as opposed to the usual fifteen minutes. The person performing the injection passed the needle through the vein into fatty tissues. This caused the time for the killer to cease living to double. No one can say for sure if he suffered. While his family is troubled over this incident, no one has said if the victim’s family was at all upset. Due to publicity of the inquiry results, both Florida and California have suspended use of death by injection. The morality question of Capital Punishment held aside, are those who support this means of judgment sympathetic to the convicts comfort. After all, it is not likely that a killer considered his victim’s comfort in death at the time of his action.
Could there be underlining motives to seeking the inquiry?
Will the killer’s family, who called for an inquiry in the execution sit by and accept an “Oops, we goofed and I apologize outcome?” Time will tell if there is a monetary lawsuit to follow. In turn, that should raise a moral question of whether any financial award belongs to the killer’s family or the victim’s family. No matter the course this takes, it will waste millions of dollars within the legal system to play out. The winner will be the lawyers not the plaintiffs.
Do we need to look at our methods of rendering judicial outcomes?
We are our own check and balance system. Society decides according to their present core of values. Because society constantly changes, the values do as well. For that reason, there will never be a long-term set answer to the validity of judgments. That slippery slope is burden of democracy we should be glad we have to bear. To accept the alternative is to bring about the beginning to the end of the freedom of democracy, as we know it.