When the State puts an innocent man to death, do we execute the people who killed him? The logical contradictions with the death penalty are enormous and unsolvable.
I've been reading some books on Medieval History lately and one thing that jumps out is the use of the death penalty by lords and kings in their domain. There was a time and place in the West when execution of criminals wasn't very common. It was far more common to have the criminal pay restitution to the family for the results of the crime or be banished from the realm. Execution becomes more common when governments begin to get more organized and populations rose. Essentially three reasons explain it.
1. Individual justice becomes too difficult when there are too many people living in one area, therefore execution becomes an easy way to deal with crime.
2. Property of the "criminal" was confiscated by "officials" after the fact...this eventually grew into a racket.
3. Execution became a sign of total power over the individuals in the realm and it always grew into one of the many methods used to terrorize people into submission.
I don't think that the State should be given the power to initiate force (and take life). I don't think justice is actually served with execution because the criminal gets to take the easy out and die, while the victim's family must live on without economic and social support from the deceased. Essentially, execution prevents any obligation from being fulfilled by the man who did the crime. It's the worst form of punishment with an odious history and cannot even reasonably be called justice, IMO.
I've been reading some books on Medieval History lately and one thing that jumps out is the use of the death penalty by lords and kings in their domain. There was a time and place in the West when execution of criminals wasn't very common. It was far more common to have the criminal pay restitution to the family for the results of the crime or be banished from the realm. Execution becomes more common when governments begin to get more organized and populations rose. Essentially three reasons explain it.
1. Individual justice becomes too difficult when there are too many people living in one area, therefore execution becomes an easy way to deal with crime.
2. Property of the "criminal" was confiscated by "officials" after the fact...this eventually grew into a racket.
3. Execution became a sign of total power over the individuals in the realm and it always grew into one of the many methods used to terrorize people into submission.
I don't think that the State should be given the power to initiate force (and take life). I don't think justice is actually served with execution because the criminal gets to take the easy out and die, while the victim's family must live on without economic and social support from the deceased. Essentially, execution prevents any obligation from being fulfilled by the man who did the crime. It's the worst form of punishment with an odious history and cannot even reasonably be called justice, IMO.
