The Death Penalty

[1961casey]

Let us see if this works.

First, it is agreed by one and all that the sanctity of life is paramount and must be protected above all else. In order to protect life a systematic codification of laws, consequences and exceptions has been instituted. As part of legal consequences to be considered, the death penalty is included.

Secondly, the death penalty is just that: a penalty. It is supposed to be meted out, not by vengeful relations, but by a dispassionate legal system. Therefore it is not a person getting revenge but a systematic judgement of one's actions and the consequences for those actions.

Third, the justice system has a comprehensive system of checks and balances designed to protect the individual's rights to a fair trial such that, in the end, it could be said that the criminal had a chance to plead his case.

It is possible that if all the conditions were properly and adequately met, then very few people would argue that the death penalty was unjust.

The problem is not with the penalty itself, but with the inadequacies of the legal system. There only needs to be one false conviction, one misstep, and the fear of further errors freezes the confidence the society has in the justice system and in the fairness of a death penalty conviction and that is the real issue facing our society.

The death penalty is a fair and proper consequence for inappropriate actions if it is available at the time of the crime. It is not a matter of stooping down to any level but standing up to what is wrong. If the perpetrator commits a crime, then he must be subject to the consequences for that crime and we as a society must declare our support for law and order by supporting the punishment for that crime.