October 10th was "World Day Against the Death Penalty," organized by World Coalition. This article focuses on Latin America and the Caribbean, a region whose countries represent the different stances on capital punishment -- abolitionists in law, abolitionists in practice, and retentionists. According to Kevin Miguel Rivera (see video), the Caribbean accounts for at least 25% of UN votes against the moratorium, so this region is globally significant.
An interesting point was that this region, which has a disproportionately high crime rate, shows no correlation between crime and presence or absence of the death penalty. If capital punishment cannot prevent crime, it begs the question of why it is implemented at all. My initial response was to say that the system holds an "eye for an eye" mentality, aimed at avenging the victims more than scaring people into obedience. What do you think? When should the death penalty be applied? Also, I recommend checking out the videos of the different activists.
It seems as if these countries are not particularly keen on actually enforcing the death penalty, so it's hard to understand why they won't abolish it. I think that the "eye for an eye" aspect is correct, since the death penalty has no direct correlation between crime rates. However, I don't think it justifies the continuation of the death penalty. As stated in the article, these countries should focus on preventing crime instead of punishing it and fully abolish the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the "eye for an eye" mentality is the reason for the death penalty. There are definitely individuals whose crimes are so vile that it's hard as a human to not conclude that they deserve to die, but that doesn't mean that the death penalty should necessarily exist. Personally, I am not comfortable with instilling a government with the legal ability to execute its citizens.
ReplyDelete