Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment: A Just Punishment that Fits the Crime

Personal experiences can greatly influence a subject that you feel very strongly about. Up until last year, I was a staunchly opposed to any type of capital punishment. However, something came along that shocked me and made me think about my viewpoints. I received a call from my father and he told me that my second cousin had been murdered. He was out camping with his long-time girlfriend when she stabbed him in his chest, killing him before any medical attention could arrive. Eventually, the case went to trial and she was convicted on manslaughter charges and sentenced to 3 years in prison. This woman robbed someone of their life, the worst thing any human being can do to another, and received 3 years in prison for it. To me, I believe the punishment should be as severe as it can be. According to van den Haag (1986 p. 268), "Abolitionists appear to value the life of a convicted murderer or, at least, his non execution, more highly than they value the lives of the innocent victims who might be spared by deterring prospective murderers." Haag's point is if the criminals could actually be deterred by capital punishment, 2 or more lives would be saved. I believe that America should adopt a "zero tolerance" policy that is similar to the "under 21" drinking law. If you're convicted of murder, you're sentenced to death, no matter what the circumstances are (except self-defense). I also believe, as many experts of the subject do, that capital punishment is morally just and favored in the bible. Lastly, I believe capital punishment should be legal because it would be very economically effective if we limited the number of appeals that offenders currently have.

I strongly believe that cases in which murder occur should carry a "zero tolerance" policy. It is my strong belief that if you take a life, your life deserves to be taken as well. This system was used in New York City during Mayor Giuliani's campaign of 1993. "The police reforms introduced in New York City by William Bratton are now hailed by Mayor Rudy Giuliani as the epitome of Ð''zero tolerance' policing, and he credits them for winning dramatic reductions in the city's crime rate" (Greene 1999, pp. 318). A main argument for the critics of capital punishment is that the death penalty is not a deterrent. If we could at least give zero tolerance a try, just as New York City did in 1993, there's a strong possibility that at least a couple of people will think more deeply before they commit murder. Many critics of capital punishment also propose the argument that "life without the possibility of parole" would be just as bad, considering the offender would essentially be losing his life that way. However, there are many problems with this logic.

"Life in prison without the possibility of parole" is the grand alternative to execution presented by those who consider words equivalent to reality. But there is nothing to prevent people under such a sentence from being paroled under later laws or later court ruling. Moreover, there is nothing to stop them from escaping or from killing again while in prison (Sowell and DiIulio Jr. 1994, pp 105).

Arguably, the most important question concerning capital punishment is, "Is capital punishment morally just and humane?" I believe the answer is yes, and I also believe that the punishment should reflect the crime. "Justice in God's eyes requires that the response to an offense--whether against God or against humanity--be proportionate. The lex talionis, the Ð''law of the talion' [retaliation], served as a restraint, a limitation, that punishment should be no greater than the crime. Yet, implied therein is a standard that the punishment should be at least as great as the crime" (Colson 1995, pp 60-61). If a punishment has to be as great as the crime, the only punishment other than torture (which would be classified as cruel and unusual punishment), would be to put the offender to death. Many Christian critics of the death penalty believe that Jesus' teachings in the New Testament disprove how the Old Testament views capital punishment. However, what those critics need to realize is that even though Jesus Christ died for our sins, he understood that if he was in fact guilty of these crimes, the punishment was just.

"While the thief on the cross found pardon in the sight of God (Ð''Today you will be with me in Paradise'), that pardon did not extend to eliminating the consequences of his crime (Ð''We are being justly punished, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds') (Colson 1995, pp. 65).

The United States of America would save millions upon millions of dollars if they adopted my zero tolerance policy along with cutting down the number of appeals that death row inmates have. Death row inmates have been abusing Habeas Corpus, which is the right of the accused to receive a fair trial and a number of appeals. I believe the accused does deserve a fair trial and I believe they deserve one appeal in a court different from the first in which they were tried. However, when found guilty, offenders usually turn to different courts in hopes of delaying their execution.

Once a judgment is affirmed on appeal, the matter is permanently settled and cannot be challenged in another court. Only in state criminal cases are final judgments routinely second-guessed in a different, not higher court. For after state courts have exhaustively reviewed the conviction and found no reversible error, the convict runs to