The Cincinnati Enquirer |
Editorial Page
|
January 1998 |
| I disagree with Ralph Wainscot [State carrying
out wishes of the voters, Wednesday, January 14, 1998], when he says with
respect to the death penalty that, "The state is not acting in a God-like
manner, deciding who is worthy to live or die."
The death penalty is a final, absolute act. A reasonable argument can be made that an absolute act can be made morally, only by a being of similarly absolute capacities, such as absolute knowledge. When the state acts in a manner that is absolute, you can say the state is acting in a God-like manner. Unfortunately, the state, being composed of flawed human individuals, lacks the absolute capacity necessary to make this act moral. This, I believe, is the root of the moral dilemma concerning the death penalty. Imperfect beings are acting in absolute ways. |
It is not difficult to find unacceptable
imperfections contaminating human justice. When you look at the individuals
who are convicted of capital crimes, factors unrelated to the crime in
question, such as race and income, appear to exert significant influence.
I read just recently about the release of Moses Jackson ["Man falsely accused
of murder set free," Jan 10], jailed for 5 1/2 months for being in the
wrong place at the wrong time. I’ve read stories in this paper about people
convicted of capitol crimes being released years later because of new DNA
evidence.
It seems that if you wish the state to kill criminals, you must also accept that a few innocent people will be killed as well. The influence of human error, bias, and even random chance, speaks strongly against an absolute act such as the death penalty. Todd Brennan, Clifton
|
 |
 |
