Post by Anja on Jun 15, 2006 16:09:05 GMT -5
Prosecutor should not seek death penalty in murder case
The murder of the Covarrubias family opened eyes that were blind to the
lethal tensions between groups in our community.
Now that these eyes are open, many want to see justice come full-circle. I
agree. However, some witnesses to this crime and its media coverage have
different definitions of "full-circle" than others.
One such meaning is sentencing suspects Desmond Turner and James Stewart
to their own deaths, an example of the "eye for an eye" philosophy. In
order to showcase to others the potential consequences of their actions,
many prosecutors desire to seek the death penalty for those who bring
death to innocent people. While this method certainly eliminates the
possibility of continued murder committed by Turner and Stewart, several
"intangibles" are left unresolved, including true closure, adequate
correction, and the opportunity for forgiveness.
Another meaning of "full-circle" is sentencing them to life in prison.
While the survivors and witnesses will not get the revenge they think they
deserve with this option, revenge is not really the point of law
enforcement and criminal justice. Capital punishment only raises the
number of dead people to 9; life in prison, however, enables good to
result from a seemingly unsalvageable situation. Because the men who
committed the crimes would still be alive, they would have a chance to
contemplate their motives and ask themselves if the Covarrubias family
deserved their fate. In their realization of the family's innocence,
Turner and Stewart may ask for heartfelt forgiveness. The Covarrubias
family, one full of faith, hope, and persevering love, would likely
forgive them.
We may feel as if the death of Desmond Turner and James Stewart will
resolve the immediate problem, and maybe it does. The immediate problem is
not worth solving, however, when an option exists that would help solve
the conflict responsible for the problem. Such an option exists; it is
Carl Brizzi's choice to follow through with the option. If, however, he
still decides to seek the death penalty, the Indianapolis community will
have missed a great opportunity to combat ignorance and hate with
understanding and forgiveness.
We are of many colors, many faiths, and many ideas; however, these do not
deny our interrelatedness as common human beings. Maybe an argument from
the gay-marriage debate will help: hate the sin, but love the sinner, just
as all people need love. Mr. Brizzi, please do not kill a fellow human.
Alex Farris, Indianapolis
(source: Opinion, Indianapolis Star)
The murder of the Covarrubias family opened eyes that were blind to the
lethal tensions between groups in our community.
Now that these eyes are open, many want to see justice come full-circle. I
agree. However, some witnesses to this crime and its media coverage have
different definitions of "full-circle" than others.
One such meaning is sentencing suspects Desmond Turner and James Stewart
to their own deaths, an example of the "eye for an eye" philosophy. In
order to showcase to others the potential consequences of their actions,
many prosecutors desire to seek the death penalty for those who bring
death to innocent people. While this method certainly eliminates the
possibility of continued murder committed by Turner and Stewart, several
"intangibles" are left unresolved, including true closure, adequate
correction, and the opportunity for forgiveness.
Another meaning of "full-circle" is sentencing them to life in prison.
While the survivors and witnesses will not get the revenge they think they
deserve with this option, revenge is not really the point of law
enforcement and criminal justice. Capital punishment only raises the
number of dead people to 9; life in prison, however, enables good to
result from a seemingly unsalvageable situation. Because the men who
committed the crimes would still be alive, they would have a chance to
contemplate their motives and ask themselves if the Covarrubias family
deserved their fate. In their realization of the family's innocence,
Turner and Stewart may ask for heartfelt forgiveness. The Covarrubias
family, one full of faith, hope, and persevering love, would likely
forgive them.
We may feel as if the death of Desmond Turner and James Stewart will
resolve the immediate problem, and maybe it does. The immediate problem is
not worth solving, however, when an option exists that would help solve
the conflict responsible for the problem. Such an option exists; it is
Carl Brizzi's choice to follow through with the option. If, however, he
still decides to seek the death penalty, the Indianapolis community will
have missed a great opportunity to combat ignorance and hate with
understanding and forgiveness.
We are of many colors, many faiths, and many ideas; however, these do not
deny our interrelatedness as common human beings. Maybe an argument from
the gay-marriage debate will help: hate the sin, but love the sinner, just
as all people need love. Mr. Brizzi, please do not kill a fellow human.
Alex Farris, Indianapolis
(source: Opinion, Indianapolis Star)