Creative Title

A couple months ago, this campus organization that I go to–the Society of Independent Thought–held a discussion on the topic of the death penalty–namely, whether it’s wrong or right. At least, that was the intended discussion; most everyone agreed that there are immoral acts punishable by death. However, this one girl kept asking whether or not the state had the power to enforce it (if you will).

Well, we went over that ground as best we could, considering that such conversations rarely end in an absolute answer. It got to be 10 pm, and we all went our separate ways. I, myself, got back to my dorm and got in vent with my mom and our NJ WoW friend, during which time my mother brought up her own opposition to the death penalty. I asked her about it the next day, and her argument was essentially the same as the girl’s: the state shouldn’t have the power to decide.

Now… I get it. I have a deeply-held belief that governments should essentially have as little power as possible. But what is the alternative? Well, the only ones I can really come up with are we either don’t execute anyone, thus causing even more prison overcrowding, or have some form of vigilante justice–and we all know how that can turn out in the end if the vigilantes don’t naturally form into groups followed by systems of leadership… also known as a government (though, admittedly, it’s pretty awesome at first. Yes, I know they’re both fiction; the characters in the former are based enough in reality that my point still stands).

“Well Hazel,” you say, “if you’re so smart, what’s the solution?” But see, that’s what I’m trying to say: there is no solution. There is no perfect system. There will always be innocent people executed, just as there will always be guilty people freed on basis of technicality or bribery, no matter the system. But that doesn’t matter, so long as the large percentage of people who deserve such a punishment get it, and most people who commit no heinous act get no comeuppance. Tragedy and mistakes are nigh unavoidable, and death wholly so; might as well do what we can to keep law order justice alive where we can, but injustice is inevitable in any system (and surely without one).

Besides–and I must make this point lest someone mistake me for someone ignorant of our particular system (yes, I brought this up in the meeting)–the government itself is not necessarily the one deciding upon a sentence (or, perhaps, verdict). I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s a jury that has the primary voice, yes? I’ll concede that a jury can be led, tricked, shown falsified evidence, simply a bunch of idiots, and so on and so forth, but guess what? They’re human. A government is made up of humans. Humans, in essence, are a little… imperfect. We still have yet to create a perfect sphere, the atomic clock’s accuracy is 10^-9 seconds (which, yes, is impressive to say the least, but still not 0), heck, rarely-if ever-can any one person do something as simple as draw a straight line (without a ruler–and heck, even with one it probably looks like crap close up). We’re imperfect beings rather used to fooling ourselves into thinking that we can completely solve anything, much less something as complicated and that attracts such corruptible people as a government system.

So what do we do? Have a computer make all the decisions? Right, that’s always* a good idea. No, all we can really do is just live with it, I guess. It doesn’t matter anymore that Jack the Ripper was never found; the guy’s long-since dead anyways. If an innocent man gets executed and a guilty man lives, everyone dies. Sure, keep having these seemingly endless talks on the matter; refine the system so as to allow the absolute minimal amount of mistakes and tragedy. By all means, work as much as possible to make it better, but don’t expect it to ever be flawless. You’ll only disappoint yourself.

*Three links splitting the word. Just wanted to prove more than one point (and yeah, two are pretty similar).

Hey, I must be getting better at this; I actually made a point.