Justice Not Death Essay, Research Paper
JUSTICE – NOT DEATH!
I, Judge Brady, am sentencing Paula Pretty to a life in prison with no
possibility of parole for the murder of a 16 year old female. My decision to oppose
the death penalty is based on moral, practical, as well as constitutional grounds.
I realize that many of my voters do not support me in my decision, however, I
cannot go against my strong belief of a persons right to life. My job as a judge
is to uphold the constitution and judge the actions of the accused, not the accused.
I am a judge, not God, and I have not been granted the authority to judge a human
life.
The death penalty is immoral and places the state in the role of God, and it
has no authority to take upon this role. “The author of the moral law is God,” (Stace
p.172) and not the state. Therefore, I, as a judge, must uphold the state’s laws as well
as God’s moral laws, in which both prohibit murder. We live in a democracy where
we all have a say in what our government can and cannot do, therefore, practicing the
death penalty places all of us in the role of executioner, and brutalizes and degrades
our society for doing so. I, nor anyone else, is in the position to judge a human
life, nor can we select who is to die. No human being has been granted that authority.
To kill someone as a punishment for murder, would be committing the same crime we
were meant to punish, and that makes us all murderers. Furthermore, the only reason
for the death penalty is vengeance, and vengeance is not only immoral but it has no
place in a civilized society. A civilized society should seek justice, not revenge.
I refuse to meet hate with hate and violence with violence.
On a more practical level, the death penalty wastes resources and is
counterproductive in its results. The death penalty actually costs more than keeping
someone in prison for an entire lifetime. The threat of the death penalty has also
been proven not to deter crime. In fact, executions give society the message that
human life does not deserve respect, and that murder is legitimate when it is
justified by revenge. Therefore, the death penalty actually makes our society more
violent. Because of such high costs and the proven fact that it does not deter crime,
the death penalty is counterproductive and a waste of our time and money.
It is quite understandable that Americans feel a desperate need to do
something to fight the increase in homicides, however, the death penalty is not an
acceptable method. Not only is this method immoral and an unsuccessful deterrent
of crime, it is also unconstitutional. Our constitution guarantees due process of
law and restricts cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is the most cruel
and inhumane punishment, and unlike all other criminal punishments, it is irrevocable.
Death forever deprives the individual of due process of law. New evidence might
prove a person’s innocence, but death deprives an individual of this benefit. There is
no guarantee that many innocent people won’t be given the death sentence and that is
a mistake that we cannot correct.
Overall, it is not in my power to determine the value of Ms. Pretty’s life, nor
is it in my power to take it away. My job is to uphold the laws and laws are about
justice not revenge. I do not mean to sound unsympathetic to the victim’s family,
however, as much as I wish I could, I am powerless to relieve them of their grief.
Wanting someone else to die does not help the victim’s families heal. It only makes
them focus on anger and hatred instead of forgiving and healing. My duty to uphold
the constitution has been done by sentencing Ms. Pretty to a life in prison with no
parole, which is must less inhumane and an equally effective method of punishment.
I hope that the people of my community can understand my reasons for doing so, and
will support me in my stand for jus
JUSTICE – NOT DEATH!
I, Judge Brady, am sentencing Paula Pretty to a life in prison with no
possibility of parole for the murder of a 16 year old female. My decision to oppose
the death penalty is based on moral, practical, as well as constitutional grounds.
I realize that many of my voters do not support me in my decision, however, I
cannot go against my strong belief of a persons right to life. My job as a judge
is to uphold the constitution and judge the actions of the accused, not the accused.
I am a judge, not God, and I have not been granted the authority to judge a human
life.
The death penalty is immoral and places the state in the role of God, and it
has no authority to take upon this role. “The author of the moral law is God,” (Stace
p.172) and not the state. Therefore, I, as a judge, must uphold the state’s laws as well
as God’s moral laws, in which both prohibit murder. We live in a democracy where
we all have a say in what our government can and cannot do, therefore, practicing the
death penalty places all of us in the role of executioner, and brutalizes and degrades
our society for doing so. I, nor anyone else, is in the position to judge a human
life, nor can we select who is to die. No human being has been granted that authority.
To kill someone as a punishment for murder, would be committing the same crime we
were meant to punish, and that makes us all murderers. Furthermore, the only reason
for the death penalty is vengeance, and vengeance is not only immoral but it has no
place in a civilized society. A civilized society should seek justice, not revenge.
I refuse to meet hate with hate and violence with violence.
On a more practical level, the death penalty wastes resources and is
counterproductive in its results. The death penalty actually costs more than keeping
someone in prison for an entire lifetime. The threat of the death penalty has also
been proven not to deter crime. In fact, executions give society the message that
human life does not deserve respect, and that murder is legitimate when it is
justified by revenge. Therefore, the death penalty actually makes our society more
violent. Because of such high costs and the proven fact that it does not deter crime,
the death penalty is counterproductive and a waste of our time and money.
It is quite understandable that Americans feel a desperate need to do
something to fight the increase in homicides, however, the death penalty is not an
acceptable method. Not only is this method immoral and an unsuccessful deterrent
of crime, it is also unconstitutional. Our constitution guarantees due process of
law and restricts cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is the most cruel
and inhumane punishment, and unlike all other criminal punishments, it is irrevocable.
Death forever deprives the individual of due process of law. New evidence might
prove a person’s innocence, but death deprives an individual of this benefit. There is
no guarantee that many innocent people won’t be given the death sentence and that is
a mistake that we cannot correct.
Overall, it is not in my power to determine the value of Ms. Pretty’s life, nor
is it in my power to take it away. My job is to uphold the laws and laws are about
justice not revenge. I do not mean to sound unsympathetic to the victim’s family,
however, as much as I wish I could, I am powerless to relieve them of their grief.
Wanting someone else to die does not help the victim’s families heal. It only makes
them focus on anger and hatred instead of forgiving and healing. My duty to uphold
the constitution has been done by sentencing Ms. Pretty to a life in prison with no
parole, which is must less inhumane and an equally effective method of punishment.
I hope that the people of my community can understand my reasons for doing so, and
will support me in my stand for justice and not death.