Can Justice Go to Far??


The author of this publication Ernest Van Den Haag, has some very compelling defenses of the death penalty. His defense that the unequal distribution of the death penalty among those who are guilty has no consequences is a very one sided way to look at capital punishment. Even though his thoughts on why we need to assert capital punishment and the consequences that come along with it, assert a very just and capitalists way of looking at things he still doesn’t answer what would happen with the men to are executed and are later found not guilty. In his readings he made it sound that like if a few have to be lost for the greater good then so be it. As it stands right now by his reading there is about 20,000 homicides that occur in the United States on an average year and very few of those found guilty and convicted for capitol punishment ever get executed. Yes I believe this is a waste of the taxpayer’s money, but I don’t agree that any innocent individual’s should have to lose their lives for others mistakes even if it’s a law.
Do you guys agree or disagree with this topic? I don’t think Ernest Van Den Haag, looked at the whole picture of placing yourself in the shoes of an innocent individual awaiting to be executed for a crime he did not commit. His point of miscarriages of justice was a little far one sided for me agree any further. There is no way that trucking, lighting, or construction, cost the lives of some innocent bystanders is the same as an innocent individual losing his life for a crime he did not commit.
Do you guys agree with the author on any of his topic points?


2 thoughts on “Can Justice Go to Far??

  1. I agree somewhat with the author of this article. I believe it is a good system providing the conviction was the truthful from beginning to end and no one committed perjury. He did mention this was a last resort type punishment and there is no coming back, so we must use this sparingly. The system is designed to punish those who committed the murder, not innocent people. I am not excusing the innocent lives lost since inception of the death penalty. That is inexcusable!!! As I wrote in my blog, when and only when the guilt is beyond reasonable doubt should the perpetrator die for his actions. No doubt, life is precious and we must ensure we protect lives on both sides of the line.

  2. People are only convicted when it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the crime(s). But even when people are convicted because the proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and all the evidence points that they are guilty, some are still innocent. There was a man in Texas who was convicted of murdering his two boys by burning his house down while they were inside. He did not have any evidence that could clear his name. Texas enforces capital punishment more often than California. The man was put to death only two years later. A few years later, technology was created that proved that the fire started from the fireplace and the father was innocent. There can only be two kinds of systems: New York (no death penalty) or Texas (death penalty and actually uses it). I do not believe that a system like the one in California is a good model because it is just a waste of money and many of the inmates die on death row. So, do we want Texas or New York? Statistical analysis has proven that deterrence does not work based on murder to population rates. I think the answer is clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s