It was interesting to hear what both
sides had to say about the death penalty and how some took this topic more serious than others. The simple attendance of this debate from the
start of class had educated me partially on this topic, away from the
simple inhumane argument.
However one subject that wasn't brought
up in this debate was; the death penalty is another way for fate to
claim lives. What I'm saying in my opinion is how the death penalty
is similar to dying in other ways; fate controls the situation in
determining the outcome. Determining a person to live is by
chance; to continue to live or start over somewhere else where their actual real life is. Like for instance, there are three chances for an
outcome after a life threatening event. 1/3rd chance is to be killed
off and the other 2/3rd chance is to continue living without injury,
the latter is sustaining a random injury (ranging from a scar to
possibly a severe injury that will permanently affect the
individual's daily life) and lets the individual to choose one of the
two aforementioned options by them-self. Why do some live past 100
years old while some die too early? The same applies to natural
illnesses, some can survive while some pass away. As well as
accidents; some people have been known to survive the impossible and
get away as if nothing happened (various recorded footage that were
Real). Others, not so much...
Sister Helen mentioned how there was a
petition(?) in Italy that led the pope and a million civilians to
forcefully prevent someone from being executed via the death penalty
in the U.S.. This relates to my statement as this could have been
performed to other victims as well, but why did it only happened to
only ONE person?
By the way, what IS the difference in
executing a dangerous wild animal that has claimed the lives of
humans while our kind can essentially perform the same thing, but can
dodge the scythe of Death more easily (e.g. put in confinement rather
than executed)? I've recently found an article regarding to kill off
a sole predatory creature that was responsible for the death of
humans. There was an infamous case involving a huge crocodile in
Burundi (Gustave) racking its kill count of humans up to 300 in 2008 that
possibly still lives to this day. The team that were sent to capture
and conserve this creature had spent 15 years. To be unsuccessful...
Brady Barr who was within that team had stated and pointed out:
"People
have to get their water, do their laundry, fish for a living,"
says Barr. "If a croc does take a person, villagers may
slaughter a few crocs after an attack—enough to feel as if they've
done something—and then they go back to doing what they have to
do." Had they focus on
weapons than snares and traps, guaranteed there would be less
innocent lives from both sides becoming a statistic. Like the
infamous Panar leopard of Northern India, it's fate was to die because of Jim
Corbett's wild bullet in 1910 after killing and mostly eating 410 humans. And another pair whom which were both gun downed by the same hunter after sharing 500 kills between them.
This also applies to other predators
such as lions, tigers, alligators, cougars, and even sharks (in fact,
the Jaws movie was inspired by a 1916 case involving a SINGLE huge
shark). Same could be applied for humans, disregarding the media's
idiotic love for spreading propaganda and exaggerating inaccurate
sugar coated information. People tend to attack and censor innocent
people that relate to attacks by individuals of the same group, feeling
that they would become more safe by doing so because anyone they see who fits the group could either be the culprit or a servant. More so if the leader of a corrupted group was to remain alive in jail instead of being dead.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.