Redemption and Capital Punishment

After reviewing this week’s learning resources, I assert that Williams’ sentence should
have been reduced to life in prison instead of execution. The (capital punishment) death sentence
and redemption have been weighty subjects in the justice system. Some argue that redemption
should be applied instead of capital punishment to allow offenders to reform and reenter society
at the right moment. Another argument for redemption has been that punishment by death is
ungodly and unethical. Nevertheless, proponents of capital punishment argue that death can deter
some people from committing very egregious crimes.
Based on the case study, William was charged with four counts of murder and was found
guilty and condemned to death. On the other hand, William demonstrated signs of change during
his brief stint in prison before being executed. It was possible to deduce that he had changed
based on his actions and comments. Therefore, I believe that instead of the jury executing him, it
could have issued a life sentence, allowing him to reform.
I believe that redemption and justice can coexist and are compatible. Applying the rule of
law equitably and fairly is what justice entails. Redemption is principally intended to give people
a second chance in life to redeem and reform themselves. However, sometimes it might not serve
as justice to the victims or family members who have lost their loved ones to murder or
homicide. Therefore, while redemption and justice might sound unequal, to some extent, judges
are allowed to pardon an offender based on behavior change. If a murderer changes his ways, his
sentence should be reduced. Mending one’s ways is a significant behavioral change that judges
must consider when pardoning offenders. Therefore, it is only ethical to give people a second
chance. Lastly, I think mercy is not compatible with justice. Mercy is a virtue that relies on
emotions and humanity, whereas justice is centered on the rule of law.