It never ceases to amaze me how as a society we can be so wrapped up in our causes and beliefs that we forget the big picture. Of course there are two sides to every story and every issue and I will not be right to some or wrong to others in my opinions and beliefs but we must think these things out.

I do not know of anyone who want’s for someone to have a life of crime. I wish the world could be crime free as well. We have to all agree on the fact that this is not going to happen. There will always be criminals as long as there are people living. What defines a criminal worthy of the death penalty?

We are certainly not wanting to advocate the death penalty for someone who shoplifts or drives a vehicle in excess of the speed limit. There are some though that would argue that murder, rape, and even other harsh crimes should not be punishable by death. This is where I start to disagree. Even though there have been cases where DNA evidence has freed someone convicted of a crime I do not feel that it is a reason to abolish the death penalty.

We could relax the laws and let all evidence be tested that is in custody for all inmates on a death row and then we would be done with it. People who are arrested now can have their DNA evidence in court if it falls in line with the rules of evidence. Sure, it would take years to do the old testing; so what, it takes years fro all appeals to be exhausted in most states anyway.

The first thing to remember when that man or woman is convicted of a crime worthy of the death penalty is the victim and the victim’s family. A majority of death penalty cases involve murder as at least part of the crime. Was it fair that the victim’s life was cut short? Was it fair that their family has to go on living without the victim in their life anymore? I should think not. That would be utter nonsense on the face. Everyone deserves the right to live and I don’t think anyone could ever come up with an argument against that. What do we do with the person or person’s responsible for ending someone’s life?

The second thing to remember is the fact that we as taxpayers must pay for the upkeep of this convicted individual. If this person is convicted to death, guess when they will be eligible for parole. You got it, when they die. We will have to house them in a prison for the rest of their life giving them a place to stay, food, and clothing. We will even provide them with health care which quite possibly could be better than the health care of people in our own families. What does it cost this inmate? Time. More than likely time to try and think of a way of proving his innocense.

Will this person be rehabilitated with a nice long stint in prison? Maybe it would, but; maybe it would not rehabilitate them. Would you want to take a chance on some of these people living in your neighborhood? How about letting them stay in your house if they are released with your family. Is that something you could consider? I dare say I would never think of it.

Another thing to consider is the number of inmates that are on a death row or have been convicted of crimes that could warrant the death penalty. With the population of the world increasing and land available for housing decreasing where would we find to build enough suitable prisons for these individuals? At this point I urge you to think of all the people that complain at the thought of a correction facility placed in their neighborhoods for criminals who are a lot more likely to be rehabilitated.

I know there are many arguments for rescinding the death penalty and I do not write them off for being any less important than those I write here supporting my belief in the death penalty. This is a tough decision that cannot be taken lightly. Being noted that I am in favor of the death penalty for crimes that fit the requirement then my nest question is about the cruel and unusual punishment aspect of the penalty.

Is it cruel and unusual punishment? I don’t think so. The lady shot to death while sleeping in her house when the burglar broke in, the child kidnaped, brutally beaten and tortured to death, the man slaughtered while trying to protect his family from the addict who was high on drugs; these are people who suffered cruel and unusual punishment. These are all part of a family that will suffer cruel and unusual punishment for the rest of their lives.

I, personally, feel that there is no torture too cruel for the criminals that commit acts of violence such as these. However, I have to say that I will live with the fact that torture is not allowed. The thing is, how do you carry out a sentence of death that is not cruel? Firing squad, gas chamber, electric chair, or lethal injection?

I believe in lethal injection much more than the others because there is less chance for problems to occur I think. I have read of people having to be electrocuted twice in order to die. I, being human, do not wish to inflict this on another human. I have been exposed to gas and would not want anyone exposed to gas unless of course they were put to sleep and could not experience what was happening. What about the firing squad? Well, what if by chance they hit the convicted criminal with a bullet that didn’t do what it was supposed to? Would you want to be shot again? I wouldn’t be either. So, it needs to be an effective measure that will work the first time.

Lethal injection is the way to go. I am sure there is someone out there who will tell me that the sedatives do not always work. We have all heard the news reports of the person who felt everything when their doctor did surgery on them. The thing is though, how many of those cases have been reported compared to the number of surgeries completed? The percentage is very low.

Once the anesthetic has been placed and the rest of the cocktail introduced into the prisoner’s body and he is checked by a physician and has not died we can always give more anaesthesia to keep him unconscious. The ability to not feel pain while you are dying is one of the greatest concern’s of many people. So, if this pain was kept away would the execution be cruel or not cruel? I feel not.

I read that in the state of North Carolina death by lethal injection was on hold because of the argument about whether a physician being involved in the process was a violation of his Hippocratic oath. “What”? I said to myself? I would think we would want a medical professional involved. With a doctor’s expertise could we not determine death, and whether or not we needed more anesthetic? I do not understand where some of these argument’s come from.

Many people argue that there are reasons why the death penalty is not proper for a crime. Some of these arguments include the convicted was a drug user, had a bad childhood, or was mentally handicapped or challenged at the time. I say stop making excuses. I have heard all types of situations trying to mitigate what someone does. The bottom line is we are human and have a brain. Use the brain and you know right from wrong. Cloud the brain with drugs and you screwed up yourself. Do not ask me for sympathy. Yes, before you ask I have in the past experimented with some drugs. I am just lucky I never got into trouble.

In speaking of the mentally handicapped or challenged individuals, I know there would have to be some consideration there. Where I want to draw the line though is the fact that someone can commit a crime after they got off work at the job they have held for 5 years and instead of going to their place of residence they have had for three years they decide to commit a crime and then go “I was insane”, Wrong answer. I am not going to get into clinically diagnosed insanity or retardation. The thing is it does not pertain to everyone convicted of a crime. I have never spoken to individuals doing life in prison or sentenced to death that did not say either “I am innocent”, or “I went insane and didn’t realize what I was doing”. I do not mean this to include everyone because there is no way I have talked to them all.

Bottom line, we need the death penalty. It makes sense for several reasons. The first being closure to the victims and their families. The second being cost and another is the fact that you must repay society for the loss you caused. There is no justification from my point that someone should be kept alive and given anything when they have done a wrong to someone that would take their ability to receive life away.