Johannes,
I will try another approach...
Justice is administered by mortals, and as such, we know that it cannot be an exact science. I think you will agree with me that nothing should ever be too simple when a life is in the balance.
When men are making a choice on wether or not to take a prisoner's life, they are in effect substituting themselves for God, and making a human and therefore always imperfect judgment about a life, which many, and I believe you, consider sacred.
In a few of these cases, the imperfect judgment of men is as bad as murder itself. ( Mentally retarded / very young criminals / wrongly accused )
You could tell me that there are many situations where men have to make the same type of imperfect judgments where lives are involved ( Politicians / police / individuals making a choice to use deadly force.), But as I see it, the very existence of a dilemna over the consequence of their action or inaction is what makes those kind of judgments morally acceptable. In cases where other lives are also at stake, killing may well be the only choice.
In the case of a prisoner, I do not think this moral dilemna should exist any longer.
If it still does, it is because we, as a society, are making poor choices (letting criminals back on the street, failing to convict criminals, failing to adress the root causes of criminality, failing to reform the justice system, accepting corrupt politicians) and have backed ourselves in a corner where the death penalty has become necessary in the eyes of so many.
|
