Let me give you a brief synopsis of a documentary I watched in my Institutional Oppression policy class today. The video focused on a murder victim and her murderer, who was also accused of killing two other people. The victim, Risa, was sexually abused when she was young. Her mother had several children and neglected them all. Eventually, the state removed the children from the house and placed them in foster care. Risa became involved with drugs at a young age but managed to graduate from high school with a 3.5. Once she "aged out" of the foster care system, Risa moved into her own place, enrolled in college, and worked to support herself.
As it turns out, the murderer grew up in a similarly harsh environment. He was molested as a young boy. His mother, an alcoholic, abused and neglected him. Unlike Risa, the murderer was not removed from his hectic home. Instead, he turned to gangs to form a new family.
It seems to me that the filmmakers' goal was to raise questions about the morality of the death penalty. In my opinion, this story is an unfortunate example of how the social welfare system fails children and families. This is an argument for prevention and intervention, not for abolishing the death penalty.
Alright, alright, I'm getting to the point. During the class discussion, someone expressed the view that we can't judge that murderer's worth and that to do so would mean that we feel we're better than him.
While I understand that some people genuinely feel that way, I must respond by saying, "Speak for yourself. I am worth more than a murderer."
Speaking of school, I dreamt last night that someone in my class had a 4.005 GPA. Notice the two zeroes? I was pretty upset that they'd beat me by five thousandths of a point and puzzled that it was even possible to get anything higher than a 4.0 in college.
No comments:
Post a Comment