Rethinking Violence - Death Penalty and War

Peace Studies

Paper #1: A look at the U.S.’s aggressive actions towards other nations, as well as its own citizens

I have always been wishy-washy when it came to the topic of capital punishment and the death penalty. I was certainly never a proponent of killing others, and in the majority of circumstances, when asked whether I believed that a particular criminal deserved the death penalty, I would usually say no. But there were always those who committed such horrible atrocities that I did not feel they had the right to live. Take the DC snipers. As a DC resident who experienced personally the fear of day to day living that we went through, even when doing something as mundane as filling our cars up with gas, I did not feel Muhammad and Malvo had the right to live. I felt no pity for Muhammad, who, as a 17 year old, was still a child in the eyes of the law. I felt like, if he felt that he could make adult decisions, like taking innocent peoples’ lives, than he could deal with the adult consequences. But all of these feelings changed when I heard the stories of Shabaka and Joe Giarratano.

Up until this course, I had never thought about what executions do to the family members of those on death row, or about the possibility that the judicial system had made a mistake and could be killing the wrong man. I was always aware of the inequalities that existed in our country’s judicial system, and how we have a nasty habit of killing African Americans and the poor, while the guilty rich and white remain unscathed. I had always figured, if you were convicted by a jury of your peers, then you were guilty, and deserved whatever punishment you received. Now I see that this is not the case, that even if someone is convicted, there are just too many individual variables of the case that make it impossible to make a righteous decision of who should live and who should die. I found it cruel and downright frightening that our government could have the gall to murder a mentally retarded person like James Terry Roach, who, although he was involved in a murder, was merely tagging along with a dominant, aggressive person. I believe that people like Roach, although they may no right from wrong, do not have the mental capacity to understand the finality of their actions, nor the seriousness of what they have done.

Now when I debate the wrongness of the death penalty to a friend, I always bring up the family members of the convicted. Why should these innocent people suffer? It is like they are being punished for other’s actions. A friend of mine, who has always considered himself to be a proponent of capital punishment, replied, well the murderer should have thought about his family before he committed the crime. Not knowing how to reply to that, I had him read from one of our books the story of David Washington saying his final goodbyes to his family. My friend then understood what I tried but failed to get across to him; giving retribution for pain with more pain and anguish does not solve the problem. In fact, it irritates the problem, causing it to swell and grow into a horrible cycle that seems ready to explode. I now see that the death penalty, clearly, makes no sense. It does nothing to deter crime, and any other reason for having such a punishment would be undemocratic and inhumane. Therefore, I truly believe now that the death penalty must be abolished, in order for the human population to survive. I would also be interested in seeing whether crime would actually decrease if such a change in law were to occur. Perhaps our government actually sending a good example would rub off on those who are destined for a criminal life.

Related somewhat to this issue of killing other humans is the current situation in Iraq. Again, this is a debate in which my opinions have been forever changed since taking this peace studies course. When Bush declared war on Saddam Hussein last year, I felt hopeful, that maybe life would finally improve for Iraqi citizens with the removal of their despot ruler. Never a fan of either Bush, I believed that our decision to remove Saddam from power had noble, honorable causes that we were going to liberate the Iraqi people, and give them control of their country. Boy was I wrong. Bush and his cabinet of advisors propagated this war to be something that it wasn’t. They said that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and that weapons in the hands of such an unstable tyrant were a danger to humanity. Well, I suppose it would make sense for them to think this, since WE GAVE HIM HIS WEAPONS! But that’s not hypocritical (sarcasm). And it is not hypocritical to judge another country of not providing properly for its citizens, even though your own country can’t seem to feel, clothe, shelter, educate, and provide medical assistance to more than half of the population (more sarcasm). I believe that the United States is in a social, economical, and political crisis. Since Bush has been in office, 3 million jobs have been lost. But we had to go into Iraq to hunt for weapons that did not exist. In my opinion, Bush is no better than Saddam, because while he sits pretty up on his presidential throne, never to know the effects of starvation or homelessness or poverty, millions of his citizens are feeling every one of these effects to some extent. And he does nothing. Our country has never known the meaning of the term “peaceful resolution,” and I believe that now is as good a time as any to start. Every time a nation’s actions conflicts with our grand design, we simply bomb them into oblivion. I honestly do not understand why the rest of the world hasn’t banned together to overthrow the U.S. and give us a taste of our own medicine. And the scary part, is, it could happen.

These are just a couple of the issues that have been discussed in this course that have moved me and changed my beliefs. How would I change our current situations? First, I would put more women into office, for I think that women are accustomed to using non-aggressive/physical tactics to solving conflicts. I also think that if peace studies courses like this one were employed in schools, that both men and women could be educated on the alternatives to violence, and would find that beliefs that they have always held could falter and even change, for mine did. Students, when learning about World War II in high school, must learn about such nonviolent movements as the Danish rebellion and Le Chambon, in order to know that there are alternatives to picking up guns and bombs in fighting against the wrongful deeds of others. I also think that it would be a good idea for students to visit prisons and death rows, and learn about the social inequalities that exist in the system, for if it is never brought to the youth’s attentions, then they will never know to change it.