Was He Guilty?

Was he guilty?

Maybe ... or so the court said.
Or was it a jury?
Or a judge?
Or a failed system?

So, maybe he was guilty.
And lets just say, "Guilty as sin."
He caused pain and death.
For another human being.

And the family of the killer will have to live.
Live with the painful memories of a love one's life.
Snuffed.
Dead and gone.

Was he guilty?
Maybe.
Perhaps.
Looks that way.

So, now what?
Kill him, some say.
The state can kill, they say.
It's okay to kill, if the state does it, they say.

Angry preaches love to talk about wrath.
God's wrath and all those folks who should be snuffed.
Snuffed out like a candle.
Kaput, done away with, killed.

So, maybe we kill the man.
Then what?
The world goes on as it has.
Kill or be killed is the code for too many.

The death of the killer makes some feel better.
Would I feel better if it were my kin being avenged?
I don't know.
Maybe ...

But, then, on the other hand.
Does the killer's death right the wrong?
Make things better in this sad and broken world?
Are there other ways of dealing with loss?

Other than killing the killer?
Killing the man who did the first killing?
I mean, killing.
Cold-blooded killing, by the state.

On a gurney.
With straps.
And tubes.
And chemicals.

So, we kill the killer.
Now what?
Death wins.
Life loses.

Anyone keeping score?

Death Penalty?

Historically, the State has the right to take a miscreant's life - this is supported in legal and religious studies, but the question that dogs the story is our flawed ability to determine absolute guilt, and all the related stories of the innocent being executed. Along with these sad stories, the simple reality: the death penalty is no deterrent. Historically, societies that regularly kill lawbreakers are themselves likely to become increasingly violent. Death in the air is breathed by everyone. For me, in view of these pieces, I oppose the death penalty.


Written in response to a Facebook query ...