2008 Woodie Awards
Clemency for Stanley "Tookie" Williams
Pete Nickeas
Issue date: 12/16/05 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 4 next >
As America watched the toppling of Saddam Hussein's allegedly cruel and violent administration, most of us rejoiced that the inhumane treatment of fellow human beings would come to an end in a certain section of the world that is notorious for less-than-standard human rights. Whether you agreed or disagreed with the war in Iraq, and on what grounds, is of no matter. Saddam Hussein had a track record of cruel treatment and at the absolute least, the fact that he could no longer kill and torture should help most sleep a little better at night.
But amidst all the anti-torture and pro-human rhetoric, Americans have forgotten about or simply ignored the standards we impose upon other countries. Maybe, just maybe, the magnifying glass we used on the administration of Saddam Hussein should be turned inwards and our treatment of prisoners should be examined.
While there is supposed to be no distinction made respecting any religion, many still use the "eye for an eye" story in the Bible as support for capital punishment. Religion aside, the one-for-one logic is generally accepted among Americans as a proper way of punishment.
When a person kills another person, that person should be killed. This raises two obvious issues and another not-so-obvious one as well. First, what makes one person above another? Why is it acceptable for a man to kill a man if it is sanctioned by the state but not acceptible for a man to kill another man without that permission? Secondly, if we did follow the logic that if you kill someone, then you should be killed, this would inevitably mean that everyone, everyone, would die from murder eventually.
So, to say an "eye for an eye" is severely flawed logic. What is really to be said is that, while it is not fair for the majority to take life into their own hands, it is fair for a small majority to decide and choose accordingly whether murder is indeed acceptible.
But, prescribing to the "eye for an eye" logic, this should also work in reverse. If you take one's life, then your life should be taken. Could it be said that if you give someone life, then you should be given life, as well?
But amidst all the anti-torture and pro-human rhetoric, Americans have forgotten about or simply ignored the standards we impose upon other countries. Maybe, just maybe, the magnifying glass we used on the administration of Saddam Hussein should be turned inwards and our treatment of prisoners should be examined.
While there is supposed to be no distinction made respecting any religion, many still use the "eye for an eye" story in the Bible as support for capital punishment. Religion aside, the one-for-one logic is generally accepted among Americans as a proper way of punishment.
When a person kills another person, that person should be killed. This raises two obvious issues and another not-so-obvious one as well. First, what makes one person above another? Why is it acceptable for a man to kill a man if it is sanctioned by the state but not acceptible for a man to kill another man without that permission? Secondly, if we did follow the logic that if you kill someone, then you should be killed, this would inevitably mean that everyone, everyone, would die from murder eventually.
So, to say an "eye for an eye" is severely flawed logic. What is really to be said is that, while it is not fair for the majority to take life into their own hands, it is fair for a small majority to decide and choose accordingly whether murder is indeed acceptible.
But, prescribing to the "eye for an eye" logic, this should also work in reverse. If you take one's life, then your life should be taken. Could it be said that if you give someone life, then you should be given life, as well?
