It is 2006 we should be far passed the death penalty. It is sad that we are so uncivilized to the extent that we kill those who kill. It isn’t immoral, it isn’t wrong, it isn’t right… It can only be excused by ignorance.

The Life and Crimes of D. Penalty Law defines human beings and their existence on the planet Earth. There are laws for every imaginable thing and subject. The Laws of Physics, the Laws of Nature and the Laws of Humankind dictate the cycle of life upon the planet. Law is universal, it is unrelenting. It is the eternal government of an infinite universe. Law is supreme, if it were not so there would be no reason, no force to guide the electrons in their ethereal dance around protons. Without law there would be no substances, no elements, no compounds or molecules for the building of the most basic cells. The laws of physics and nature are severe, rarely allowing for mistakes. The laws of man, however, are a flexible substance. Since the beginning of society, mankind has enacted laws to direct and protect himself. Since humans are imperfect and prone to succumb to their evil desires, the law will be broken. So a penalty is imprinted into the law; if man breaks it, he must suffer the consequences. Consequences are more severe for greater transgressions. The ultimate consequence for broken law in such times is death. It is not a pretty subject, but it is reality. Capital punishment is the execution of human life as the consequence for a desecrated law; thus when the law is broken, the punishment must be enacted. There are people who believe that capital punishment is wrong. However, the death penalty is justified because it protects society, deters crime, and is Biblical. The book of Joshua tells, the story of Achan. The Israelites having just won a great victory at Jerich, were instructed by God to destroy every living thing within its gates and to take no spoils of war. But Achan, son of Carmi, “took the accursed things, so the anger of the Lord burned against the children of Israel” (Josh. 7:1). Israel then went out to fight against Ai. There they were utterly defeated. Joshua cried out to the Lord and was told that Achan had wrongfully kept plunder. Achan, his sons and daughters, and all that he had were taken out of the camp and stoned, burnt with fire then buried under a mound of stones. Israel then attacked Ai again and won. Once Israel had cleared itself of the sin of Achan, they had God’s blessing an success. Throughout the Bible are multiple examples of times when capital punishment was carried out to purge out the evil among the people. Zimri and Cozbi were killed for bringing idols into Israel, the priests of Baal were killed by the Jews after their defeat by Samuel, Ananias and Sapphira were killed for their greed and lies to God. Throughout Biblical history the deaths of certain people who had committed evil were required to save the rest of nation from succumbing to the same evil. The Bible has a firm example of the law of purity, sacrificing those who bluntly disregard it in order to keep their evil from spreading. Capital punishment in America is much the same. The people on death row are those who have committed the worst of crimes, they have deliberately taken the life of another human being. They have disregarded God’s sanction on human life and taken it into their own hands, and thus their own lives are forfeited. God has given his people the right to rid themselves of evil, and what greater evil is there than those who have desolated the embodied temple of God himself? The question is asked: but what of those who have committed murder and not been punished? What of Cain and Moses, David and Paul? These men all committed or were directly associated with the murder of innocent people. How can it be said that God has given us permission to purge ourselves of evil and yet these men where not punished? Jesus himself told us to “love your enemies and bless those who curse you” (Matt. 5:4). It is then not possible for humans to love their enemies if we put them to death. And even if it were, who are we to cast judgment? Are any of us without sin in order to cast the first stone? Because Jesus came to set us free from the confines of the law, we are to follow his message of love and forgiveness and refuse to accept the death penalty for it is as much a crime as murder itself. The question is answered: men like Cain, Moses, David and Paul did not escape from their evil deeds unscathed and unpunished. Cain was driven from his family and had a mark placed upon him. Moses was forced to flee Egypt for the land of Canaan in order to save his life after he killed an Egyptian. The child David conceived with Bathsheba died shortly after its birth. Paul was greatly feared and hated by the Jews, his own countrymen, for his actions. But most importantly, all of these men recognized their wrong and were truly repentant; they did not escape a penalty for their actions; they were punished. True, Jesus told us to love our enemies and extend forgiveness instead of hate, but that does not mean that we are to become simpering pacifists who only want love, peace and happiness. For every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, Physics 101; thus if a man commits a crime he must be punished for that crime. Who are we to judge- we are God’s representatives on this earth: we are to carry out his laws and principles. In order to carry out His laws we must do what we can to rid ourselves of evil around us. No human is without sin, no human has divine right to cast the first stone, but even so we are not to simply let crime ravage. If Christians do not fight evil who will? Humans are justified in carrying out the death penalty for it is Biblical. Another reason justifying capital punishment is deterrence. Consider the following analogy: Dannie wants a cookie. The cookie jar is just in his reach and he knows it is filled with large chewy chocolate chip treats. However, there is a problem; Dannie knows that he is not to take a cookie and mother is in the house to enforce the rule. Knowing that he is very likely to be caught and that there would be a punishment for his wrong doing, Dannie decides not to take the cookie. The same principle of action and consequence can be applied to criminal intent and capital punishment. If a person knew that there would be certain severe punishment for a wrong doing, they would be far less likely to commit that wrong than if there was no punishment. A character named Kyle on NBC’s The Pretender, who used psychological torment on his victims, said, “I heard once, that the anticipation of pain is far more effective than the pain itself” (Dragon House part 1). If one knows that the fire will burn them, then they will not touch it. If a man knows that maliciously committing murder will result in the death penalty, he will be far more reluctant to commit the crime. Consequently the death penalty is effective as a deterrent because it takes away what humans value or should value the most: life. The natural human reaction to anything that has the power to inflict death is at first fear. The death penalty is a direct threat to life and thus humans seek to avoid it. If the powers that be declare a certain action ignominious and the punishment as death, the action will be avoided by all who rationally fear death. Capital punishment is justified for it is a deterrent upon crimes resulting in its practice. “The most savage banditti are always found under laws the most severe, and it is no more than what might be expected. The fate with which they are threatened hardens them to the sufferings of others as well as their own. They known they can expect no lenity, and they consider their acts of cruelty as retaliations” (qtd. in Beccania 25). Following the argument above, how can it be said that capital punishment deters crime when in fact crimes are more rampant when the penalty is in act? In England during the late 1600s to early 1700s capital punishment was inflicted on a wide variety of crime including, but not limited to, idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, sodomy, murder, adultery, rape, perjury and rebellion. Yet these and other more petty crimes were still widely practiced despite the severity of the punishment. Post Reformation England abounded in crime during serious moral relapse. The government and the people themselves had fallen into a lazy attitude towards God and moral conduct. The people had grown careless and cruel; what was it to a mother to sell her child off to a work house if she could stay out of debtor’s prison. And when the child ran away from the work house, turning to petty crime for his livelihood, what was to stop him from developing habits for heinous crimes? It was not the punishment for the crimes that made them flourish; it was the dire circumstances forced upon people by a cruel and morally deprived society. In modern America the above argument of non-deterrence is used, and here the author is forced to admit that the way capital punishment is practiced in America is ineffective. This author would propose that capital punishment should be more constant in its usage. For any deterrent, weather it be capital punishment or life in prison, is ineffective if it is not consistently practiced. In the words of a paper presented before the English Parliament by A. Balwin, “If it be not executed steadily and impartiality, with an exact hand (still giving allowance for extraordinary Cases) it will serve to little purpose, since many will be found (as ill men easily flatter themselves), who will not fear a Law, that has sharp Teeth indeed, but does but sometimes bite” (19). If a lion or any other wild carnivorous animal is born in captivity and fed only those foods which do not contain blood, the animal will be far more docile than one born of the wild. But feed that docile animal meat- let it taste fresh blood, and the docile animal will be replaced with a savage beast. The taste of blood is addictive to the animal and it will always crave it for the rest of its life. Never again will that animal’s trainer be able to approach it with confidence. Men who deliberately and meticulously plan out the death of an individual and receive no punishment for the crime will be greatly inclined to commit the crime again. Such men have tasted blood and finding no repercussion for their actions wish to taste it again. Criminals like these are a constant danger to society if they are allowed to roam unchecked. Thus, in order to protect itself, society must enact means of ridding itself of such danger. R.L Calder states the stand of society in the following way: “nothing is more remarkable in the evolution of a community than the growing regard for human life…When the life of an individual is unjustly taken by another individual, the horror of the community for such an act cannot be adequately and proportionally manifested” (qtd. in Crowe 45). So it stands that in order for society to protect itself from harm, it must rid itself of those individuals who would maliciously harm it. This is not an act of cruelty or revenge, society has no personal grudge against those who disregard its laws, it is merely trying to preserve its existence in a safe environment. Thus, capital punishment is justified by society’s need to protect itself. In contrast to this reasoning, the opposition of the death penalty states: “the state continues to kill its victims, not so much to defend society against them- for it would do that equally well by imprisonment” (Darrow 48). This statement reflects the ideals of those who would see the death penalty removed from practice. If society needs protection from criminals, they say, let those criminals be cloistered away from society. Why is it necessary to strip another human being of his life in order to protect society, when secluding him would produce the same effect? If a man commits murder and is found guilty in a fair court, would it not appease the safety concerns of the community if that man was sentenced to life in prison rather then death. In prison the man would be no harm to society and would be able to live out his days in peace without the horror of impending death. It is not necessary to rob a man of his life if he can pay the penalty for is actions by another means. The preceding reasoning states that imprisonment protects society as much as capital punishment; however, this is not true. Rarely are life imprisonment sentences carried out and often inmates receive parole in less then twenty years. Men who have committed heinous crimes against society are then released to romp about in it. They are set free to once again visit their perverse natures onto the innocent and the weak. If he is not set free, a criminal could escape and chameleon into the community, escaping detection. Then, when he feels secure, he will strike again on the innocent. Another side of the coin is- what kind of life is there to be led in a prison? Every day is the same monotonous routine, no break in the cycle, no surprises or unexpected joys. That is not life, it is merely an existence. In 1987 Mark Chicano was sentenced to 260 years in prison for three murders. After the sentence was pronounced he became violent, lunging at the panel of judges and screaming out, “I must be killed! I must be punished for what I did! You got to kill me! If you don’t put me to death, I will, one way or another” (Pakaluk 68). The horror of life in prison was too much for Mark Chicano to bear, he would rather take death than such an existence. In some ways life imprisonment is just as cruel as the death penalty; the only difference is that the former has no failsafe to protect society while the latter does. Politicians and civilians alike could debate issues for years and still not come to an agreement. However on the issue of capital punishment the facts stand on their own. No matter what the oppositions says, the Bible does give man the ability and right to execute judgment on his fellow man. Capital punishment does serve as a deterrent, although it would be more effective if it was consistently practiced. And the death penalty does protect society better than any measure; only with the death penalty is one assured of the non-existence of such evil. Man has made laws in the patterns of his predecessors who have followed those laid down by God himself. The Law of God is perfect; not only did God see it fit to write out the laws of thermodynamics in the flame of a candle, but he also saw it right to give us a law by which humans might live. Despite the corruption of the human heart to the point where he would kill another, there is a way to purge society of its evil. There are people who deserve to die. That is the plain and simple truth. Humans are capable of committing crimes the likes of which even Stalin would cringe at. If such atrocities can be effectively punished with anything less then death, then may God help us all. For capital punishment is justified by its ability to protect society, deter crime and uphold biblical principles.

Works Cited Balwin, A. “Hanging Not Punishment Enough for Murderers, Highway Men and House- Breakers.” English Parliament, 1701. Rpt. in The Death Penalty Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1991. 17-20. Beccania, Cesare. “An Essay on Crime and Punishment.” 1775. Rpt. in The Death Penalty Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1991. 21-26. Crowe, Robert E. “Capital Punishment Protects Society.” 1925. Rpt. in The Death Penalty Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1991. 41-46. Darrow, Clarence. “The Futility of the Death Penalty.” 1928. Rpt. in The Death Penalty Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1991. 47-52. “Dragon House Part 1” The Pretender. NBC. WGAL, Lancaster. 17 May 1997. The New King James Version of the Bible. Thomas Nelson, 1982. Pakaluh, Michael. “Till Death Do Us Part.” 1989. Rpt. in The Death Penalty Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Carol Wekesser. San Diego: Greenhaven, 1991. 67-73.

I'd like to share a statistic with everyone here. When DNA testing was conducted to executed fellons, over 50% of them were proven INNOCENT of their charges. Thats right, 50% of these people were innocently sent to their death. I don't know about you, but I don't like those odds.

make them work all day, eat shit food, and live the rest of their life for the government with no human rights.