Granting mercy is sometimes the best way for a judge to serve justice.

Granting mercy is sometimes the best way for a judge to serve justice.

11:42-12:13

The purpose of the justice system is to maintain order in society and determine the outcome or future of a convicted criminal. In all cases there is only one party, the plaintiff or defendant that will win the case. The justice system has truly changed over time from stringent rules such as the Code of Hammurabi in Ancient Egypt and the Eye for an eye law in many Arab nations. This notion of law is supporting the claim that the person on trial should accept a punishment that is equivalent to the severity of their crime. Justice is meant to give fairness in society and is delivered variably based by the individual ideals of the judge. Nowadays, justice can give punishments equal to the severity of the crime or can grant mercy on the individual depending on the nature of the crime.

First, consider specific situations when granting mercy is the best way to serve justice. For example, consider cases of petty theft of stealing candy by a child. The child is now a first time offender and must accept their mistake and view their time in court as a time of self realization and wake up to the facts.  By granting mercy to the child, in this case is completely appropriate for giving a second chance. By doing so, it is a life changing experience for the defendant where they go on a more positive path in life and allowing them to grant mercy to others in the future. In these cases, punishing the defendant may not serve justice to the defendant and society as a whole. Another example, is Cameron Kocher who was a 9 year old being tried for murder. Kocher was charged with accidental manslaughter. He was playing with a rifle, when it fired and shot his neighbor. It was wrong for the court to try him as an adult; at the age of 9, one isn’t capable of processing information and planning a crime like an adult. The concept of morality as is not fully developed so they don’t know how to distinguish between  right and wrong. In such cases granting mercy is the best way for a judge to serve justice.  Cameron Kocher, was a kid playing, he was not old enough to know the consequences that playing with a gun has. It is not right to put him in the same categories as those who not only commit crimes such as rape and murder but also know the consequences of their acts.

On the other hand, consider when it is appropriate not to grant mercy to serve justice. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 the American people sought after the criminals and asked for justice to the families who lost their loved ones. It is not appropriate to give mercy to adults who knowingly commit a crime and are aware of the repercussions. The suspected terrorists in this case were not granted mercy and automatically received the death sentence. Another example, is the 1993 Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh. Timothy McVeigh was a sane adult who knew his actions were unlawful and had no mental problems. He received the death sentence via lethal injection which was suitable to the nature of the crime. Showing mercy on crimes such as mass murder, or rape sends a message to society that such acts are legitimate. Furthermore, showing mercy puts such criminals back on the street, endangering society.

All in all, granting mercy to a convicted criminal is circumstantial. If a criminal, such as Cameron Kochler or the boy who stole candy, had no concept of morality and could not differentiate between right and wrong then granting mercy is appropriate in these cases. By doing so it give them a second chance, and to convict a child is like restricing the next generation.In contrast, a criminal who knowingly commits a crime such as the 9-11 terrorists and McVeigh deserve no mercy because they are fully aware of their actions.