Life and Death Row

Before, I have aired my views on the Death Penalty. I have always been firm on the fact that I believe the Death Penalty is necessary but only for extreme cases e.g. murder. I know it might be shocking to admit to that, but I just felt it was the only punishment suitable for someone who had done something as horrific as murder. And yes, I know that it can be tricky to determine if the person is actually in the wrong sometimes and there are all sorts of other complications, but that's just what I agreed with.

Then I invested some time into watching Life and Death Row on BBC iPlayer. I hadn't realised there was episodes from as far back as 2014 so I started with the very first episode and began to learn more about the ins and outs of the Death Penalty and how cases are dealt with in court and so on. Needless to say, I changed my opinion at once. I do not agree with the Dealth Penalty. 

I know my views on the subject would probably differ had I been in a situation where I had been attacked or victimised by someone who was now on Death Row and maybe I would want them dead. But in my current scenario in life, I can firmly say that I disagree with the Death Penalty. So what was it that changed my heart?

Wrongly convicted inmates. I have read stories before of people leaving Death Row after being found innocent, having now wasted an entire lifetime in prison and it breaks my heart. A human's life is so precious and to hold the power to give and take it in our hands is incredibly dangerous- we have to be so careful before determining that a) they are guilty and b) they deserve to die. Imagine ending someone's life due to the death penalty to then discover that actually, they had been guilty. It's a really complicated and tricky thing to deal with but I think that someone's life is just to precious to be undecided over and to take risks with, regardless of what they have done. 

Scenarios that haven't been appropriately considered. Was this person provoked? Were their actions out of character for them? Is it their first offence? In the program, a young boy shot at a police officer who was off duty. This seems like a closed case scenario, right? 

Wrong. The off duty police officer actively followed the boy in his car, as he believed that the boy has broken his wind shield. When he approached the boy he said "I'm a police officer" and went for his belt- which to the boy, who had received military training, indicated that he was producing a weapon. So in some form of self defence, he shot first and then fled the scene. 

When you take into consideration factors such as these, it puts quite a different spin on the crime. Whilst murdering someone is still wrong- so the boy is still in the wrong for killing the off duty police officer- I don't think it's deserving of the Death Penalty, but rather, life imprisonment or something similar, due to the actions that occurred before the shooting. This is the same with every case- it isn't enough to just consider the crime alone, but the mitigating evidence and the scenario in which the crime happened too! 

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. How can we show people that murder is wrong by killing murderers? We can't! We can't carry out the same crimes as the criminals and tell people it's okay because we are doing it for the right reasons. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and we will achieve nothing in this endless vicious cycle if we do not change our way of thinking. 

History of a criminal. Some criminals have truly, truly awful pasts that have lead them to do the things that they did, almost through no fault of their own. One case in Life and Death Row showed a man who was forced to smoke weed every day from the age of seven and take cocaine from the age of eleven- if he didn't do this, he was beaten to within an inch of his life until he did. He was also sexually abused and men would come to the house to "take him out", along with his siblings and cousins. Hearing these stories made my skin crawl and whilst yes, what he did was so wrong (murder), he was also raised to not know better- his father had stabbed several people when they angered him, and so he had done what he had been exposed to whilst growing up. It's a horrific situation but counselling and mental health help would surely be more beneficial than to murder him.

The jury. Twelve people who aren't educated in law whatsoever get to decide who lives and dies. Cases that would be considered for the Death Penalty should be handled differently from 'ordinary' cases, and should be dealt with only by professionals who can make the most appropriate decisions. Twelve people from the street can not possibly decide on the life of someone, and whether they should keep their life or have it taken away. It's not right and it's not fair.  

Of course, I know the pro's for the Death Penalty too. I know that it is the worst punishment imaginable for the worst crimes imaginable. But it just doesn't sit right with me any more. There is absolutely no way it is right to kill someone, least of all as a punishment for murder. And now, I no longer see it fit as a way to punish anyone at all. I think a better alternative would be to just make prison less "enjoyable" than it is for people we feel are worthy of being killed. Rather than having open prisons or prisons with TV privileges and the likes, if you feel someone is worthy of being killed, take away these prison privileges too. Let them rot in their cells, stuck with their minds torturing them over the things they have done. Don't allow them the chance to be released on parole or bail. 

But don't kill them. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind and who are we to decide who gets to live and who gets to die? 

Love from,

Florence Grace