Texas has, and continues to be the number one leading state in support of the death penalty. The recent milestone mark of the 500th execution in Texas has given rise to discussions on what kinds of people typically get the death penalty and even who is on death row. Out of the 500 people who have been put to death by a lethal injection, around 40 percent of them have been black. We would love to say that Texas is no longer a highly racial state, but looking at these statistics would make one argue other wise. As I see it, this poses two problems.
First, if people are given the death penalty for murdering people (for the most part), why is it okay to murder them per say? Do two wrongs really ever make a right? I know that in situations where people are given the death penalty as punishment for murdering someone else seems like simply giving them what they deserve, but if everyone always got what they deserved what would this world be? Would anyone be alive?
Secondly, is our system of government with regard to the death penalty consistent? If it truly is consistent, which honestly I cant fathom to be the case, then why is there such a high percentage of blacks given the death penalty and put on death row? If we really do have a good, consistent way of deciding weather to murder someone because of their actions or not, and blacks truly do deserve to be murdered more often than whites do, then shouldn't we be concerned with why blacks are so violent as a whole? Shouldn't we be digging deeper and trying to focus on the overarching issue of why the black population seems to be more troubled than other groups do, and try to fix that instead of just killing them all the time?
1 comment:
Author of “Everything’s Bigger in Texas” recently blogged about the current issues with the death penalty in Texas. The death penalty has been in the news lately because of the recent milestone mark of the 500th execution in Texas.
The author poses the question, do two wrongs really ever make a right? Personally I am in agreement with the death penalty for several reasons. However, I do not think that two wrongs make a right but I do believe in justice and karma. Although the death penalty is cruel in that a person’s life can be taken away, why should we allow them a life in prison as an alternative? In a sense, we are paying to house and feed these criminals who might have harmed our loved ones. This is something I struggle to understand when people make the argument that legal injections should be taken out of the picture and a person who has murdered should just be give life in prison.
The author also argues about the system and how consistent it really is. I agree with her about the system not always being consistent and possibly slightly biased depending on the case. However, not every system will be perfect and if this is the case, does it make sense to keep a not so perfect system when human lives are at stake? Although I previously stated my support for the death penalty, I still question various aspects of the law and how it is being applied in our society.
Post a Comment