We have a case in the UK where appeal judges have cut the minimum sentence by half, from nine to four and a half years, for a man convicted for raping a child while on the run from prison. I can almost hear you think, why should that happen? Surely 9 years was lenient? On the other hand, in Texas, the authorities are considering stopping the last meal given to a prisoner on death row, who will be executed that day. The rationale behind this action is that many prisoners don't finish their meals (they can ask for anything, and any amount) and the last straw was a man who wasted the meal he had asked for. Depending on your make up, this can either be sad or funny.
Capital Punishment is a constant argument, and very few countries still have it. Personally, I am glad the UK abolished this punishment some years ago, and I hope it never gains enough support to bring it back. In fact, the Texas experience is a really good argument for abolishing it there too. Obviously a convicted prisoner's life has little or no value in Texas. They can spend $millions (literally) in the legal process which takes years to get a man or woman to the 'execution chamber' but will stop at the price of a meal. This is not about the cost of a last meal, it is about dignity. Human dignity. Not of the prisoner, but of the prison authority.
Every now and again, a hideous crime is committed against the young and/or vulnerable innocents, and our indignation and anger rises to the point of voicing our wish to bring back capital punishment, but should we make law in anger, or should we wait until we are in a more balanced frame of mind? What if we always punished our own children, based only on our anger? Just asking. You may have an opinion too, and can express it freely.
No comments:
Post a Comment