It is intriguing to see what two different countries (U.S., Iran) with different forms of government (Democracy, Theocratic Republic) and culture have to say about punishment for crimes. In today’s entry on Dailykos, the writers mentioned how the Supreme Court was struggling to decide whether the lethal injections are inflicting too much pain on the prisoner being executed. Simultaneously, in Iran, five men’s right hand and left feet were amputated for various crimes including “armed robbery, hostage taking, and firing at police. Armed robbery, taking hostages, and firing at the police" are serious crimes, but amputation? That is definitely a little too harsh. It’s no surprise that individuals and organizations such as Amnesty International are condemning these actions, calling it “cruel, inhuman, and degrading.” (Littlegreenfootballs/Iran: Criminals Lose Hands And Feet As Shari'a Law Imposed)
Although the death penalty does exist in the United States, the Supreme Court is concerned whether lethal injections are inflicting too much pain on the prisoner executed and if it’s going against the Constitution’s 8th Amendment – which states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”. Although I agree that some kinds of punishment is off-limits: such as cutting of limbs, torture, or the electric chair, I believe that we should not over-sympathize about the ‘level of pain’ in punishments such as lethal injection. I believe that the sentencing to death should be carefully determined, and only used against criminals that have committed the most notorious crimes, but once the sentencing is decided upon, we should stop pitying and sympathizing.
3 comments:
It does make one wonder if the harsh punishment may be more effective in some way. In class today we discussed about how fear from authority is a major component in compliance and obedience, and in this case, obedience to the law is a good thing. Would the harsh punishment, and this ‘example’ made of these five men be an effective deterrent against similar crimes in the future?
I totally agree with your point that sentencing to death should be used with utmost restraint, and only against criminals that have committed the most serious of crimes, and that we should stop worrying and sympathizing after the fact. I think that the punishment should exist as a deterrent, and if we make the punishment too ‘comfortable’, for the lack of a better word, or even acceptable, it wouldn’t be much of a punishment anymore, would it?
In one of my earlier classes we discussed how terrorists do not fear the US because of our deomocratic moral which values human rights. Terrorists do not fear punishment from the US because they know that it will be bearable. Of course I agree with the protection of human rights, but there comes a point where we need to avoid being run over. If our system advocates for the death penalty then I agree that a simple injection is not too harsh. Don't get me wrong because the I do not believe the death penalty is the right answer all the time, but most likely, the criminal did something much worse than poke someone with a needle.
It is amazing to realize the differences in our government when being compared to others. Iran makes the U.S. look like a much better choice for being punished. I feel horrible for those who have to suffer from an amputation or firing from the police-I would not want to live there!
Concerning lethal injections, it sounds as if the Supreme Court is talking about something unnecessary. We should not be worried about discomfort for someone when they are receiving a shot. They (prisoners) have obviously done horrid things in order to receive the death penalty-having some pain won't harm them.
Post a Comment