Capital Punishment. It’s an issue that’s been debated for years. Both sides have a strong argument, and neither is willing to budge. The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1972, but reversed its decision in 1976.
So—capital punishment. Which way is up?
There’s a few things that I believe need to be considered before judging a criminal for his actions. A few of these are the severity of the crime committed, fairness to society, fairness to the victim and to his or her loved ones, and fairness to the criminal. With these four considerations in mind, is the death penalty just and fair, or is life imprisonment the better option?
Most pro-death penalty people agree that the death penalty should only be used in extreme cases—things like murder, rape and high treason, while most anti-death penalty citizens would put a very severe penalty on these kinds of crimes. Since murder seems to be the crime most associated with capital punishment, we’ll use it as an example. Should we follow the old adage, “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth,” or adopt a more progressive, Euro-style policy?
We all know murder is a severe crime, but some other factors should be put into consideration. How many people were murdered by the accused? How brutal were the killings? What were the motives of the killer? Each case should be carefully evaluated, because crimes aren’t always black-and-white. Each case is unique and should be considered as such. For example, many believe the death penalty should be used in only certain murder cases, like serial killings and brutal murders, but not necessarily in offenses like vehicular homicide.
But is capital punishment fair? While many will point to it being hypocritical, savage, or barbarous, one could argue exactly the opposite. Over the years, many prison guards and fellow inmates have been killed by convicts who were serving life sentences, and even more innocent citizens’ lives have been cut short by convicts whose terms had been served or who had been released for their “good behavior.” So, in a way, capital punishment is more fair. It’s more fair to society as a whole—the world becomes a safer place, because the only sure way to keep a murderer from ever killing again is through the use of capital punishment. In the end, the irony of it all is that, through capital punishment, human life may actually be preserved by the future murders that were avoided because the killer was put to death.
Some may say that, by allowing capital punishment, we’re violating the murderer’s right to life. Maybe so, but should he still have that right to life after he has taken someone else’s? After all, the murderer does so out of his own free will—no one is forcing him to go out and commit these acts. Yet the murderer often gets the chance to avoid punishment—to preserve his own life by spending his remaining days in jail; his victim never gets that chance. What’s happened to them is history, and cannot be undone. Why are the perpetrator’s rights valued over the victim’s?
Still others will be quick to call out Romans 12:19, where the Lord says “Vengeance is mine.” But take a look at Numbers 35:16-18, where, through Moses, God repeatedly states, “The murderer must be put to death.” It appears that in a murder, specifically, capital punishment is just in the eyes of the Lord.
Both sides, however, make excellent points. In rare instances, the wrong person may be executed, and once that happens, it cannot be undone. Obviously, the suspect must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before being sentenced to death. Capital punishment still takes years off one’s life, which means it should only be supported in extreme circumstances. The bottom line is that if we live our lives how we all know we should, this whole issue should never be a problem.
And let’s thank God that we live in a country where this issue is up for debate!
