AN EYE FOR AN EYE?

The burning of the house of the offender is not a permissible punishment for arson. The rape of the offender is not a permissible punishment of a rapist. Why should murder be a permissible punishment for murder?
- Justice Ismail Mahomed, S v Makwanyane, 6 June 1995

There are a few things I’d like to talk about here so bear with me.

Okay. So, in theory, the death penalty is a just and accurate punishment for murder. The taking of a life results in the taking of the offender’s life. Fair, yeah?
So, by that logic, why don’t we rape the rapists then? Why don’t we take the arsonists out to their homes and watch them squirm as we set them alight? Why don’t we beat the living daylights out of people who commit assault, and why not take the kidnappers and lock them in the trunk of a car for a few weeks while we’re at it?
You see, that’s absurd. It’s unfeasible. It’s completely ridiculous.
Then why do we still murder the murderers???
Fair enough, murder is probably the worst crime you can possibly commit. So, supporters of it might say that it is the most extreme punishment for the most extreme of crimes. Okay, I’ll go along with that for the time being.
But by that logic, why are only some murders punished by death and others by life, or less, even? That doesn’t sound very fair to me. Who gets the honor of deciding who lives and who dies? (Again, we’re touching on hypocrisy here but I’ll let it pass – I’m hypothetically agreeing that it’s suitable for the time being).
Let me put this into a scenario that is easier to digest.
Okay, speeding. Let’s say that in one month the police caught 100 people going over the speed limit. But they only gave 50 of the people a ticket. The other fifty got prison time. All 100 were breaking the same law, doing something equally as wrong, but some were punished differently than others.
That’s not fair. But that’s how the death penalty works.
You see, the states couldn’t possibly execute every single murderer that walked through the prison doors. For one, there would be a nationwide outcry. Touching back on cost, it would just not be feasible.
So only some get death. Others don’t.
And it gets worse. You might say ‘okay, so punish the really bad murders with death and the not-so-bad ones with life’. But it doesn’t work like that.
One case that I was really fascinated by was the case of two men who broke into a house with the intent of robbing the place. Midway through the robbery, the owner of the house woke up and came to see what was happening. One of the burglars drew a gun and shot the man dead. When the case went to court, this man received a life sentence. The other man – the man who did not even touch the gun, and murdered nobody – received a death verdict and was executed. *
Ironic, huh?
What I’m trying to say here, and I know I reached this point through a lot of rambling and hypothetical’s, but the death penalty is not in the slightest bit ‘just’. We are not even just taking an eye for an eye, which is a hypocritical nightmare in itself – it’s more like we are taking one eye for every ten, and sometimes we’re even taking an eye for an eye taken by someone else.
I’ll end on a quote from Ghandi I think. ‘An eye for an eye makes us ALL blind’. If we just keep on gouging, then God help us all.

*Note: This was not a case of wrongful imprisonment; this was a true case tried under felony murder.