We live in a nation built on the founding principle that all men are created equal. In consequence, a human’s actions should be judged with equal reciprocation— “an eye for an eye.” Furthermore, capital punishment deserves implementation in cases of murder.
When considering capital punishment, it is important to not to limit the scope, or view, of “an eye for an eye.” In example, if a woman shot another man, subsequently killing him, she does not necessarily deserve death; what if he made her the victim of his habitual rape? Because of scenarios like this, capital punishment demands delicate application, and does not apply to all murders.
For simplicity, we will consider a basic instance where murder is the overriding and defining issue within a case, and capital punishment is the primary consideration.
So the reader possesses a more complete view, a short list of oppositional stances is given: more costly for the state to carry through with capital punishment, two wrongs do not make a right, and the straightforward fact that the crime has already been committed—to kill convict would not solve anything.
Taxes cover the costs of capital punishment. For a person to oppose paying the small portion of his income that will eventually aid a fellow society member is small minded, and this literal cost should not be viewed as exceeding the emotional cost to those involved, or more critical than the moral downfall.
Of course, two wrongs do not make a right, but it is possible for the second wrong to work in the direction of justice.
The argument that killing a man who has already executed his crime is invalid. Any chance of the convict committing a second offense drops to zero, and the punishment deters other possible convicts from pursuing similar crimes
Although it does not appear to be law’s general tendency to be emotionally inclined, it is important for emotions to be acknowledged when that is one of the victim’s costs.
A murdered person gives up the rest of his life and numerous opportunities, whether the person would have lived for seventy-three or twelve more years. This is an enormous payment on behalf of the victim. In addition, there is the emotional trauma during the murder, which to most, is likely incomprehensible, and the trauma to the victim’s relations. Piling upon these last three costs is society’s loss of wealth in some form or another from the loss of one of its persons.
One of the law’s primary goals is to provide appropriate compensation. In this scenario, to provide the equal compensation, the only means would be to reciprocate the original actions.
Thus, the death penalty has the potential to be the appropriate sentence to achieve the primary goal of many cases, compensation.
This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, http://www.joshuapondlaw.com.