I also believe that the prosecutor needs to prove that without a shadow of a doubt that the person that is being tried is guilty of the crime. There have been too many cases in the news lately that are showing that an innocent person has been executed here in Texas such as Willingham. When things like this show up in the news and media I think it makes Texans look really bad especially our governor who did not want to even look over the case and the new investigation done. There needs to be extreme investigations and research done before delivering a verdict in a case like this.
At the end of the day, I think that we need to change a system and process to better provide a solution to people that could possibly be placed on death row. Just imagine if you were the person that was sentenced to death row and you knew that you were innocent, but there was nothing you could do to find the system.
3 comments:
My classmate, Alexander Stowell, writes in his blog,"I do not think that people need to be on death row for ten plus years. That is ridiculous. People should not have to sit around that long knowing that they are going to be put to death." I disagree with this statement. If people do such a horrific crime that they are going to be put to death, I believe that they need to sit in jail and think about what they have done. I mean, what an easy way out it would be if we were to shorten the appeals process and execute the guilty ones right away. The perpetrator of the crime would have very little time to ponder over his guilt. Also, the prosecution would not have the time to reconsider the case in the off-chance that they made a mistake, and an innocent person might be executed wrongly. I do agree, however, that something needs to be done to the system in order to prevent another case like the Willingham case. We need to use the Willingham case as a lesson and find a way to not let it happen again. Putting people to death more quickly runs the risk of putting innocent people to death, and I think this is too great a gamble to take. I do not know the answer, nor do I think I will ever get a choice in what the answer should be. All I know is that shortening the appeals process is not, in my opinion, the right answer. But, yes, there needs to be better checks and balances in the process.
Have you ever heard the follow-up expression to that old time saying (an eye for an eye)? "If we take an eye for an eye we are left blind." To me, that couldn't be truer. When we are hurt and angry we are known to make rash decisions. These decisions are not only unjust but never seem to comfort anyone. If you are willing to kill others for their evil deeds what message does that send to the evildoers? We dissociate ourselves from execution because we are not the ones to push the button, but the truth is that we are deciding who has the right to live. That seems to be a substantial responsibility for the common citizen.
The government offers very little opportunity to those that abuse the justice system. If you do not have the money to buy your freedom you are left to suffer the consequences. We see convicts as though they are below a law abiding citizen. They are tainted for the rest of their lives as criminals. To be regarded as unequal seems to be more of a repercussion than death. There are countless ways to die naturally, yet we choose to give time frames to some? These types of destructive actions are easy ways to label humanity as arrogant, why buy into the cycle?
Post a Comment