COLUMN: When criminals deserve justice
In the 2005 book “Freakonomics,” the authors explained how abortion lowers criminal activity. The majority of abortions, they argued, occur in low-income, broken homes — the type of homes that are statistically most likely to raise criminals. About 20 years after the Roe v. Wade ruling, which legalized abortion in the U.S., crime suddenly and sharply dropped. The early ‘90s was the time period at which children born after Roe v. Wade were entering their late teens and criminal prime. Suddenly, however, the children that were most likely to be criminals weren’t there; they had been aborted.
My purpose in bringing this up is not to advocate abortion as a method of crime control. Rather, this gets to the very heart of what causes crime: broken homes and families. The best way to fight crime, therefore, is not law enforcement or a liberal application of the death penalty but to fight poverty and build strong families.
This past week Troy Davis was executed, and the controversy around him speaks volumes about our justice system. I believe in the death penalty. There are some individuals that are beyond reformation and will never be fit to live in society. Yet, I fear that we are too liberal in its application. While I believe in justice, I believe first in mercy. The abortion case suggests that the difference between a productive member of society and a murderer is environment. We should first seek reformation and provide a healthy environment to those who were born into less fortunate circumstances, and then fell in to crime. Execution has its place, but not as our initial resort.
I do not know if Georgia executed an innocent man. I do know, however, that if we as a society sought mercy before justice that we would probably not be asking that question right now.