Have you ever seen film The Green Mile based on the novel by Steven King?

Haven’t you cried when the big guy was eventually sentenced to death though he was innocent and could help people with his divine gift?

The question concerning capital punishment has been acute through all history of human beings; death penalty is irreversible and in case of a mistake a posthumous pardon is really of no use after belated discovery of innocence (not speaking of the moral aspect of one person having a legal right to kill another). Should this kind of punishment exist as retributive justice to those who commit serious assaults or is supreme penalty a violation of human rights and moral laws? The European countries abolished this kind of penalty and there are heated discussions of this matter in the governments of other countries.

The disputable points, however, remain as there are cases in judicial practice which in public opinion were treated in unjust manner. The concept of justice itself is understood differently by different groups of people: by relatives of the victims, by witnesses of a crime, by judges and people working in the judicial bodies and by people not related to the sphere, by simple observers. For those whose relatives were injured or murdered, revenge becomes obviously an objective in an ideal of justice to which they adhere without giving the matter much conscious thought. They consider Justice entirely done when a criminal is treated the same way he has treated a victim. A few months or years of confinement for a murder is outrageous and totally unacceptable in their opinion. These people would more likely favour the capital punishment and other kinds of hardline punishments considering them the most adequate penalty for those who committed crime.

A judge and jury must be the most impartial in each case they consider. Their primary task is to regard each evidence carefully, weigh all pros and cons and bear in mind all the details of the case including motives of a crime, psychological state of a criminal, mitigating, aggravating circumstances and many other aspects. The further fate of a defendant which depends on them as well as the holy accomplishment of Justice add enormous responsibility to their work and their decisions. That, however, does not guarantee them from mistakes and misjudging. But that is rather an exception than the rule. Judges and jury act on the point of law, so law is the main criterion of their judgement. There is of course a wide range of opinion on what constitutes appropriate redress. For those whose concept of justice is concerned primarily with the criminals’ rights and prospects for rehabilitation, any extended punishment is simply another crime.

For those focused totally on the victims’ rights, only executions or other severe penalties will restore a sense of moral balance. National and local newspapers regularly print accounts of legal cases, and quite often the stories they choose are ones in which the punishment does not appear to fit the crime. It is easy to read a paragraph about a criminal case and become outraged at the sentence passed by a judge. But keep in mind that a short article may sum up a complicated legal case which might have taken hours, days or even weeks of court time, and that the judge knew a lot more about the case than the common newspaper reader. However, sentences and penalties vary widely from one court to another leaving the question which punishment is appropriate in a case. The diversity of opinions in society and an abundance of social conditions (such as financial side of the matter) make it difficult to decide on the most adequate penalty for this or that crime.

Everybody will agree that premeditated brutal murder, rape and grievous bodily harm must be punished with long-term incarceration or life sentence or even with supreme penalty. Still there are cases when a murderer is released from prison for good behaviour after only a couple of years, or when a non-violent offender is treated severely. Such cases arouse indignation of the public. Another example of injustice, as many people may think, is the discharge of a defendant who has committed a serious crime after his/her relatives paying a large sum of money. Heh, how about celebrities coming off clear after shooting, violating, scuffling, etc? The symbolic scale of Justice have a real meaning for most citizens who believe that the legal system exists to maintain a moral and social equilibrium, and to restore that equilibrium if it has been violently disturbed.

People of all countries want safety. There are certain moral standards felt by all people according to which they measure retribution for crimes and these moral standards generally coincide if one views reality objectively. Though the idea of Justice differs from one person to another, I believe, it is possible to come to the unanimous conclusion. In my opinion, there are two main cases when punishment does not fit crime: when the decision of a judge is a premeditated violation of law and when laws themselves are inadequate. For example, in 1952 two youths in London, 16 and 19 years old, decided to rob a dairy. But they were disturbed by a policeman.

The 16-year-old boy produced a gun and killed him. At that time Britain still had the death penalty for robbery; but as the murderer was under 18 he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The 19-year-old boy was hanged though he never touched the gun. No Justice, seems to me. Still, a lot of people are inclined today to favour death penalty. The reason for it is their desire to live in a safer world. It is probably connected with the spread of terrorism today. If the leaders of terrorist organizations were executed we would feel safer perhaps, but terrorism can hardly be fought by means of death penalty as this kind of punishment may result in rage of extremist groups and new waves of murders.