>I could not kill someone who would accept responsibility for their crimes, and feel genuine remorse for their actions. (I think the greatest punishment for a murderer is to realize how inhuman his act was.)<
Well you see all this is well and good for you, but it is impossible to measure any of it as a certain payment toward the imbalance of an ethical ledger. Hitler may have been a wonderful actor who could show a great deal of remorse for his murders, but his acting ability by no means could have ever served as a certified payment toward the logical disparity he created. On the other hand, payment of his life would have made such a certifiable payment, and it would have provided two additional benefits: 1.) The absolute assurance that Hitler would never again murder another human, 2.) The assurance that no one, neither Jew nor Gentile, would by the sweat of their brow be forced to feed, clothe and shelter such a fiend.
Surely killing a murderer will not bring back a victim, but this is obviously not the goal. The goal is to evermore attempt striving toward the natural principle that one cannot get something for nothing.
>Even the most hardened criminal carries in him the potential of being converted, and become a source of inspiration for society.<
He may convert and still make a certifiable payment toward the grave disparity he created. And should he not convert before he makes his payment, as with the fiend in Jasper, then he merely demonstrates further the need for society to uphold the principle of blind justice. A civilized society will strive toward the correction of disparities. In this manner those who are unfairly harmed will be able to forgo the tendency to take the law in their own hands, trusting their society to hold to principle. Should their loved one be murdered in cold blood, this, with no mitigating factors, they will readily know that society has a built-in tendency to strive toward balancing the ethical imbalance. The murderer will give all (his life and thus his time) because he has taken all from another.
You may claim on the basis of your subjective feelings that the murderer is remorseful and that this is payment enough and whatnot, but there is no fact that he has paid. With the death penalty, it is objective fact that a murderer who incurs such a penalty has made as much of a payment as he possibly can toward the imbalance he has created. It is fact and, unlike your solution, no one with reason can question it.
>Also, forgiveness is probably the greatest source of healing for the victims.<
Forgiveness can occur despite the payment status of the murderer. A murderer may pay for his crime and yet be forgiven by his victim. The death penalty has absolutely nothing to do with a victim's ability to forgive. As far as civilized society is concerned, there should always be a sincere attempt to certifiably rectify all disparities. Surely in some cases a legal forgiveness of a debt can be a possibility, depending upon the mitigating circumstances. But it is those mitigating circumstances themselves that serve to help correct the imbalance. In cases of murder with no such circumstances, a civilized society must pay attention to both sides of the ledger. Otherwise, it is being as derelict as the accountant who only concerns himself with how much money is being taken in, but not with how much is being spent. |
