The Killing Controversy

The death penalty should be employed for criminals who have committed first-degree murder or some other serious felony including but not limited to rape, kidnapping or aggravated assault, where the criminal has a great likelihood of repeating offenses in the future as determined by psychological profile.I simply cannot understand the logic of the opposing side of this issue. Arguments against this position are that humans have the right to life; that God or some other presiding entity is in charge of judging them, and not their fellow man; and that there is a possibility that a person charged with such a crime could be innocent. Humans may have the right to life, but criminals have disobeyed the law and infringed on the rights of others, so taking away their rights as punishment seems just to me. There is no proof that God exists, and if He (or any other entity) were to burn them in eternal hellfire or exact some other punishment on them for what they did it makes absolutely no difference when that eternal punishment begins. Also, if God or another entity were presiding over humanity, and wanted the best for His little pets, he would probably rather that one who deserved it was killed than that others who didn’t had to suffer- and if He doesn’t want the best for us, we really shouldn’t listen to Him anyway. As far as the possibility of innocence, the courts make sure that they are making the correct ruling beyond a reasonable doubt, and there is always an appeal in cases where the ruling is death, so that it’s even more assured that the criminal is actually guilty. If still an innocent person is convicted of a crime and punished to death, though it is obviously to be avoided as far as possible, it is better that that one innocent person should die along with a hundred criminals than that he and the same hundred criminals go free. Though I hate to sound as if I don’t value human life, if such a scenario were looked at from a perfectly logical (rather than an emotional) point of view it is highly unlikely that that one innocent person would change the world for the better in any significant way before their death by natural causes. Also, assuming there is an Entity who punishes guilty people, they obviously would not be punished for eternity, and who cares about a few years of difference when a person’s eternal state is in question?Opposers of the death penalty make several arguments to justify their viewpoint. One of the most common is that the death penalty cannot be taken back if a convicted criminal is later found innocent. Certainly many criminals are found innocent and exonerated before they are actually put to death: according to the Death Penalty Information Center, “As of February 8, 2008, there have been 127 exonerations in 26 different States” (DPIC). This certainly makes plain the truth that America’s justice system is far from perfect. No matter what the numbers, this argument claims that one innocent person who has been put to death is one too many. Having spoken in an interview with Brittany Borman, a sophomore at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology and a devout Catholic, I find it important to include what I believe is an argument to which many defer in their reasoning for opposition of the death penalty: as Brittany states, “it’s not up to us… it’s up to God.” In this case, God is the God of Christianity, specifically Catholicism. However, God could also refer to any supreme or ruling entity which opposes humans killing each other in basic teachings. This argument operates under the belief that there is such an entity, and that that entity reserves the right to decide the ultimate fate of an individual, or more specifically to appropriate their punishment for such a heinous crime as that would otherwise be punishable by death. Conversely, some who claim to be Christians also support the death penalty, usually quoting the Hebrew Old Testament: “23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 23-25). A more objective argument is the cost of keeping a criminal in prison versus the cost of killing them, including trial costs. At the trial level, death penalty cases are estimated to generate roughly $470,000 in additional costs to the prosecution and defense over the cost of trying the same case as an aggravated murder without the death penalty and costs of $47,000 to $70,000 for court personnel. On direct appeal, the cost of appellate defense averages $100,000 more in death penalty cases, than in non-death penalty murder cases. Personal restraint petitions filed in death penalty cases on average cost an additional $137,000 in public defense costs (DPIC).  The case is also made for humanity in general: “killing is against the law, but people don’t care. They kill people anyway, because they don’t even respect other humans anymore as being human, and they make up all these reasons to kill people, and it’s just wrong. We don’t have the right to kill people” (Borman). In debating the logical aspects of any controversial issue it is easy to lose sight of the question of humanity, and its level of importance. The value of an individual human’s life must be considered when arguing for or against any issue dealing with life and death, such as tolerance of the death penalty. As some would even put it, “the death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights” (www.amnestyusa.org).I do not believe in any god, and I still don’t believe that the possibility of innocence should hold so much weight, as the chance will naturally be extremely low due to trials and appeals. At the risk of sounding heartless, I also don’t generally place a very high value on an individual human’s life when it concerns the masses, especially if that human has committed a horrible crime. However, I can see that this view is offensive to some, and I understand how a government or other power would at least be forced to take it into account so as not to appear inhumane. Also, I was surprised to find in researching that the cost of putting a criminal to death is, in many cases, greater than the cost of keeping him or her in prison. The cost of the death penalty includes the more thorough trials and appeals involved, as well as payment for the actual means of death. The death penalty is also inefficient, as the average time a criminal spends on death row before being executed is 10.26 years (TDCJ), and relatively few criminals sentenced to death are actually executed (DPIC). Of the death penalty, I still personally think that the benefits outweigh the costs, but after having researched extensively the opposing viewpoint I at least understand what they are attempting to say, and recognize that several of their arguments are valid. I think that in many cases we must simply agree to disagree.