Capital Punishment has been progressively viewed as a form of punishment that is “cruel and usual,” and there are movements that seek to abolish it because it is viewed as a threat to the “sanctity of life.” I beg to differ.

The debate argues whether or not capital punishment is ever just or reasonable. Capital punishment is definitely an extreme measure, because it involves the taking of a life, and this is a permanent state that cannot be undone. Therefore, I think that the criminal justice system needs to have a process to which there is a stringent condition on which the capital punishment can be carried out. It cannot be denied that there have been cases where innocents have been wrongly punished, and at times, the punishment was fatal.

Of course, this question is often posed: what if the person who was accused is actually innocent? There have been cases where people were tried, found guilty, and put to death for a crime they did not commit. How then would justice be served? Can a life that has been taken be resurrected? Mistakes made by the justice system on death penalty cases can result in deadly consequences for innocent citizens. A compelling case could influence media and perhaps even affect the perspective and ruling of a jury to punish a supposed perpetrator could cause the death of a probable innocent, which is why law has to be separate from emotion. The danger with personal emotion is the fact that it could result in irrational behavior; it could also cause illogical judgment. I think punishment should be carried out according to the provisions of the law, and the purpose of law is to carefully examine a case and carry out the appropriate judgment that correlates with the provided evidence. There are cases where innocents have died because emotion trumped logic and it turns out that certain mistakes could not be undone.

Now let’s address the legality of Capital Punishment. In the Supreme Court Case Gregg v. Georgia, Justice Stewart, Powell, and Stevens made the conclusion that “the punishment of death for the crime of murder does not, under all circumstances violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” The constitution does not allow for the deprivation of life without the observation of due process, and this does not give sufficient evidence or any at all to the unconstitutionality of capital punishment. This ruling provides validation for the death penalty for the crime of murder on the basis of constitutionality. The “cruel and unusual” argument could perhaps be used in cases of how an execution is carried out and the death penalty in itself is not unconstitutional. The capital punishment has been in effect since the founding of the nations and it has not been implicitly prohibited by the framers and this ruling provides affirmation to this fact.

There is definitely a difference between killing and murder, “murder is illegal in all cases, but killing is not murder.” Capital punishment executes specific killing of people who have done extreme crimes and are a danger to society. There is no reason why a person who has done outrageous actions be clothed, fed, and sheltered by tax payers, and it is a bizarre conscience to think that capital punishment forfeits the right to live. How about the right to live for ordinary innocent citizens who have become victims of violent crimes? As mentioned earlier, it is important for the law to protect the innocent, which is why I believe in a proper process to which there must be conclusive evidence to the accused crime before a person receives the death penalty. However, I do believe that the death penalty is a necessary means in deterring crime. I quote a Toby Keith song: “We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds. Too much corruption, and crime in the streets. It’s time for the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground. Send ‘em all to their maker and he’ll settle ‘em down.” I think it is time to view capital punishment from a logical perspective of the rule of law, and not be bogged down by a false sense of morality that empathizes with criminals.