by Scott Darnell
Daily Lobo Columnist
Moral dilemmas exist throughout the political world and their intensely inflammatory nature consistently render any positive solution or compromise virtually impossible. Capital punishment is a rigorous moral debate that has, for years, left two groups of individuals pitted against one another; it's a political subject that most everyone would enjoy seeing some sort of solution to, or at most, some sort of way to avoid such a divisive moral encounter.
When people argue for the death penalty, most argue that it assuredly keeps heinous criminals from ever having the chance to creep back onto our streets (usually a result of not having to serve the entirety of the long sentences they're given)and that it ensures that this nation's taxpayers won't have to dole out more and more money each year supporting more and more terrible criminals for more and more lifetimes.
Whether the death penalty is a deterrent is an open question - there is very convincing evidence on each side, but the argument must be disregarded as largely inconclusive. And, those few that argue revenge or retribution as a justification for the death penalty are understandably feeding off of hurt emotions, but creating an argument that lacks both any sound democratic basis and validity.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Let's stick to the fact that people don't like to pay great taxes to keep violent criminals alive in our prison system and they want to do what they can to ensure that murderers don't roam our streets.
Where, then, does the crux of the debate over capital punishment lie and isn't there an easy way to avoid the moral debate that inherently comes with killing someone else? It lies with prison reform, an avenue of political action that possesses the possibility of compromise and which can entirely negate our argument over the death penalty.
People want to make sure we keep prisoners behind bars for the duration of their sentences; OK, let's do it. People want to make sure that we don't burden the taxpayers with cumbersome costs for keeping killers alive in flashy, comfortable prisons; OK, let's make sure that doesn't happen.
Once that's the case, there will be no need for the death penalty by most everyone's standards, as criminals will be behind bars for a set period of time and the costs of keeping them that way won't be nearly as high. And, just in case evidence surfaces that proves a court made an errant conviction, the unfortunate individual is most likely still alive to hear about it, and of course, then able to live as freely as possible for whatever time in life may be left.
Sadly, those opposed to the death penalty are often the same people pushing for greater prison amenities for our nation's criminals; they must understand that they can't have their cake and eat it too.
If we want to nullify the inherent debate that sparks over taking another person's life, we have to decrease the "country club" style prisons that watchdog groups have created in this country. For example, weight rooms in prisons only encourage prisoners - especially those who will be in prison for a while - to bulk up to such a degree that the meager corrections staffs and law enforcement officers that guard prison facilities are in constant and substantial danger in the case of a large-scale riot.
I have also talked to police officers here in New Mexico who have said that they have arrested people who were trying to get back into prison because it's an easier life than the real world can afford them. That's sad and yet that's where a lot of our tax dollars are being squandered.
Why is killing justified in times of war? Not to be over simplistic, but simply because the other side is a threat to yourself or your nation in some manner; in a way, it's self-defense. Other than that, killing another human being isn't justified.
But the fact remains that there is a way to maneuver around the tragically inflammatory death penalty debate; we must look at prison reform and ensure that our heinous criminals serve the time they're sentenced to, and for the future, don't impose too heavy a tax burden on our taxpayers.
It's in our interest to search for solutions to moral debates, to at least moderately improve our nation's political cohesiveness.
