Death is inevitable. For some reason, people have come to the conclusion that death can be used to inflict a penalty as retribution for an offense, in other words using death as punishment. Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is currently legal in thirty-two of the fifty states in the United States. This ‘punishment’ is only applied to aggravated murders committed by mentally competent adults, as stated in its definition.
However, when you look back on the history of some of these executions, you will discover cases in which non-mentally competent adults are forced to undergo the death penalty anyways. There are numerous reasons for the disapproval of capital punishment; not only is it barbaric and immoral, it is also unjust. Unjust because this law varies for different genders, races, and ages and no matter how many times we hear the words “all men are created equal,” our government’s and citizen’s actions tell otherwise. All people should be extremely fervid in the decision to stand against the death penalty.
According to Stephen D Stewart, a Clark County prosecutor who is pro capital punishment, “life is sacred.” What gives one person the right to determine the worth of a person’s life? Shouldn’t all life be sacred? Stewart’s statement is very contradictory, considering that he supports the one form of justice that takes away the sacredness that he speaks of. Sacred means worthy of religious worship and of high value (Merriam-Webster). Every day in schools across the nation, pupils recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Every inauguration, The president, along with the citizens of this great country, recite the very same Pledge. Whether it’s the Super Bowl or a simple school event, we are all “one nation under God.”
However, much the government tries to create a distinction between state and religion, no one can deny that religion is part of our country’s foundation, and when it comes to religious beliefs, every religion I can think of condemns killing. Do not kill. The seventh commandment. “Buddhism believes fundamentally in the cycle of birth and rebirth (Samsara) and teaches that if capital punishment is administered, it will have compromising effects on the souls of both offender and the punisher in future incarnations” (Religion and the Death Penalty). Greatest of these examples is a quote from Gandhi that reads, “[A]n eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind” so instead of murder why not strive for reform? Gandhi simply puts every single situation where a person has been wronged into a perspective that focuses not on revenge, but on logic instead. An eye for an eye creates a constant, and vicious cycle where room for forgiveness and reform is scarce. Reform should be the goal, not murder.
Reform is viable. For instance: “[O]n the morning of March 24, 1998, [Mitchell] Johnson, then 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, pulled a fire alarm at Jonesboro’s West Side Middle School. They then fell back to cover, shouldered high-power rifles almost as big as they were and watched for their prey to emerge” (Koon, Arkansas Times). On that day, these two boys killed a total of five people and injured ten others. Both these boys were considered for capital punishment, but due to their ages, they instead served time in solitary confinement until the ages of twenty-one. Even though Johnson found himself in trouble within six months of his release, Golden enrolled in the University of Arkansas Community College at Batesville as a business service major, later changing his name to Drew Douglas Grant to avoid the burden of the Andrew Golden name. Reform is possible. If you have ever been in serious trouble you know how it feels to want a second chance, so why do you deserve a second chance and someone else does not?
A second chance costs less than murder. For those who continue to argue that killing a convicted felon would be inexpensive, your facts are based on the wrong day and age. In the 1990s, death row was much cheaper than life in prison without parole, but as time progressed, people began to realize that there were laws that protected even those that are considered the lowest in society. In an excerpt from Stephen Paganini's article, on the cost of death row compared to life in prison, he tells that the death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and women are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections, the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated (Paganini).
Supporting death row is supporting murder. Imagine a person was put on death row with your support. You become just as responsible as the person who aimed the gun or inserted the poison injection into that human being. You become stuck. Stuck with the guilt that precedes the murder of a human life. If you feel no guilt on the matter what makes you any better than the convicted felon? You become as guilty of murder as any felony the fact that you believe your murder was justified matters little because the end result is equal. The end result is still the same in both scenarios; the end result is the taking of another human’s life. When did killing become a satisfactory action? Are you happy or content with yourself?
Many factors go into whether or not the death penalty is valid or invalid, but every single one of us can come to the consensus that killing is wrong. Killing is not only wrong it also defies the rule of sacredness as well as denies anyone the chance for reform. The guilt of taking another human being’s life is a big weight to carry around, because the guilt in itself tends to create a lapse in mental stability as the Bible beautifully states “Anyone tormented by the guilt of murder will seek refuge in the grave; let no one hold them back” (Proverbs 28:17). Taking another person’s life in return for the life he or she took solves little, the only thing it actually does is expedite the inevitable. Death being the inevitable.
