One of the most contentious issues of our time is the carrying out of a death sentence in those states which still have it.  People throughout this nation and across the world decry this practice as being "uncivilized", as if the actions of the murderer are "civilized" in any way.  It is the duty of society to protect innocent, law-abiding citizens from those who would deprive them of their possessions and/or their lives by forceful means, and as such the death penalty should be regarded as not only the ultimate penalty under law, but also the ultimate statement that the society is indeed carrying out its' duty to the citizenry.

Some would argue that it costs more to put a person to death than it does to incarcerate them for life.  This is true, but for a reason that is not normally stipulated by those persons.  In order for a death penalty to be carried out, all appeal processes must be exhausted, up to and including a petition of certoriari to the United States Supreme Court.  These appeals take time, and more to the point, money.  A great deal of money.  While these appeals are going on, sometimes over a period of twenty years, the convicted person is sitting in prison, and the cost of normal incarceration is added to the cost of those appeals.  The appeals process should be speeded up so that the costs to the taxpayers is reduced, and that process should stop at the state Supreme Court level.  Very simply, the death penalty is a states' rights issue, and the U.S. Supreme Court need not be bothered by appeals arising from this issue.  The Federal Government itself can hand down a death sentence in cases of treason or sedition (along with other crimes), and the USSC would be the appropriate final appellate court for those cases.  It should not, however, be the final appellate court for ALL death penalty cases from the individual states.

There are those who would also argue that sometimes the wrong person is convicted for a crime, and that executing an innocent person would be a greater crime against society.  Advances in technology, specifically DNA samples, lend credence to this argument, and have resulted in wrongly-convicted persons being released from prison.  I applaud these particular cases; I would rather that law enforcement get the right perpetrator than execute the wrong one.  However, mistakes do happen.  Our system is set up to prevent as many of these mistakes as is humanly possible, and the requirement of  a unanimous verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a trial of one's peers is the foremost of these preventative measures.  Individual cases can and have slipped through the cracks, but this does not make the entire process faulty.  In fact, the miniscule percentage of errors compared to the percentage where the convicted person was the perpetrator of the crime demonstrates that the system does indeed work, and on the whole works extremely well.  If anyone can propose a better way to determine, with 100% accuracy, that a person did or did not commit a crime, I would be more than happy to hear their ideas.  Until such time, we must live with what we have.

Still others would play the race or class cards to show that minorities or those from the lower economic strata of society are more likely to have the death penalty carried out against them, and as such the system is unjust.  To these people, I would ask if the accused had an attorney (provided or paid for), and was given a fair trial in front of a jury of peers (assuming that ANY person can have exact "peers" among the populace).  Again, the safeguards placed in the Constitution and put in play on a daily basis protect the accused as much as is humanly  possible.  I would propose that better education of the consequences of heinous acts be a better solution than disposing of the death penalty altogether.

There are two basic reasons why I believe the death penalty should remain in force.  First, in my view any person who sets him/herself up to be the judge, jury, and executioner of an innocent person or persons (the victim or victims) has foregone the right to continue to live in this or any society.  In fact, the accused, after the crime has occurred, has more rights in our country than he or she ever gave the victim.  Therefore, I believe that the process of fair trial, conviction, and sentencing is the accused's last chance of demonstrating that he or she can be rehabilitated and still serve as a viable component of society; failing that, the death penalty should be carried out by whatever means are provided in the separate states.  This also answers the most recent objection of death penalty methods being "inhumane"; considering that the victims of the condemned had no say in the method of THEIR deaths, I see no reason for the condemned to complain about the method of their demise.

Second, we discuss recidivism.  This is the legal term for a person committing a crime after having been punished for that same offense.  Recidivism rates vary with the crime, of course, since a person convicted of DWI will probably receive another before the lesson is learned, while an embezzler would be less likely to commit that crime again because they would no longer be placed in a position of trust in future.  Readers are welcome to look up recidivism rates for different offenses, especially those considered capital crimes for which the death penalty can be given.  Readers are also welcome to show the recidivism rate for those convicted of a capital crime in states that do not have the death penalty.  If that rate is anything other than zero, then the rate is too high.  The rate of recidivism for those that have been given a death sentence which has been carried out is exactly ZERO, and thus the death penalty serves as the ultimate protection for society against a repeat offense.

(A side note to this entry.  I have been asked how I reconcile being pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, since to some killing the living while protecting the not-yet-living is hypocrisy.  My answer is that these views are of a pattern, in that both are protective of innocent life, both that of the unborn and that of the victim [or future victims].  It is my contention that the reverse of these views, being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty, is also of a pattern, that of being selfish and uncaring, killing the future while allowing demonstrated menaces to society to continue living.)