I just read that the judge sentenced Scott Peterson to die for his crimes. I’m against the death penalty in virtually all cases. But I don’t wish to explore that theme here. I just want to note that the judge said that Peterson’s acted in a "cruel, uncaring, heartless, and callous" manner. In other words, the judge seemed to be saying, it wasn’t the objective nature of the crimes themselves that justified Peterson’s death sentence, but Peterson’s subjective state-of-mind.
But what is the rationale for this? If Peterson is, as many have argued, sociopathically lacking in normal human conscience, this might make him beyond rehabilitation by current psychotherapeutic methods, but since the judge’s sentencing choice was between lethal injection and life in prison without possibility of parole, what difference does it make if there’s no reasonable expectation that Peterson could be sufficiently rehabilitated to re-enter society? And is there compelling reason to believe that Peterson’s sociopathy makes him a significant threat to other prisoners? I suspect that the threat posed is entirely TO rather than FROM Peterson.
So, it seems to me that the message the judge sent to society is that we kill people for being sick or crippled with a lack of conscience. We wouldn’t think of killing someone because they can’t see or hear, but we think it’s perfectly okay to kill someone because they can’t feel normal human regard for life and normal guilt and shame for taking it.
No comments:
Post a Comment