The death of a murderer will ensure that he will never again take human life. There is an elegance to such logic. Sure, others can pontificate over the sanctity of human life, fear that an innocent may be executed, and tug on our heart strings with the chance that a killer may turn angel. All of this is so much rhetoric when you think about that person who takes human life.
The sanctity of human life is something that gets lots of press in the 'civilized' world. Sorry, its an illusion to think that everyone around the world values life like an opponent of the Death Penalty. And one should wonder at their values when they will fight passionately for the life of one who without regard for victim or consequence has taken life. Human life has value and one means to support such a notion is take it away from those who would take it from others. What do we value more than our own life? We protect more life when we remove those who take it without regard for life.
The execution of an innocent person is the greatest tragedy. It is an indictment of our system for dispensing justice. Opponents of the Death Penalty would eliminate the risk of such an instance by eliminating it as an option. Out goes baby and bath water to salve the conscious of people who do not understand that a society exists only if its members agree to follow rules or face consequences. Now a person who will not follow rules and does not fear imprisonment is rewarded with life for taking life. The solution is not to eliminate a means to remove a deadly menace from society. Why not fix the system instead of eliminating it?
I don't buy the argument that the Death Penalty is a deterrent. Not under a system where endless appeals mean a person spends decades on Death Row. Hey, if my puppy piddles on the floor, the longer I take to address and correct means the less effective I will be in preventing future piddles. In the past when justice was swift and punishment public perhaps it was a deterrent. Today that is not the case. The Death Penalty is a formalized version of shooting a rabid dog so he does not endanger us. The penalty is a means to make sure that one person never again takes a human life. This is my problem with opponents who say life imprisonment is a better choice. Why give a known killer the chance to kill again. Heck, if I am here for life what else are they going to punish me with?
Now the fantasy of criminal reform. That somehow if we pile on enough social scientist (Psychologist, Social Workers, and other do-gooders) that a person will see the error of their ways and reform mind, body, and spirit. Sorry, our prisons are places of higher education for criminals. Go in a petty criminal walk out an undergraduate of more profitable crime and the means to beat the system. I am a cynic, I don't believe that once your behavior crosses a certain line it can be changed. Hidden or repressed yes, but fixed? Nope. It reminds of me of the concept of the 'hanger queen', an aircraft that by design or accident fails. It gets turned into parts for other craft that work reliably. Because even the greatest effort at fixing it leaves a doubt in the minds of those who must trust it to perform when needed. When a person takes a human life they change forever. Ask a veteran of combat about this. When a person takes life in a criminal enterprise be it spur of the moment or thought out, they change.
With all of this said should everyone killer get the Death Penalty? No, thankfully our system allows for juries to choose what punishment best fits the crime. I realize our system is not perfect (what system created by man ever is?) but, it affords the criminal more rights that his victim(s) and has appeals in place to make the best effort that only the guilty get punished. Opponents of the Death Penalty are seeking a perfect system to be absolutely sure that the guilty only get punished, efforts at reform/retraining versus punishment, and finally doing something so they feel good instead of doing the hard but right things to protect society from its criminals.
In the first case, sorry nothing is absolute or perfect. Secondly, our prison system like our public schools are holding facilities for groups we are not sure what to do with; they have neither the money nor the staff to make even a dent in cultural realities. Aside from that there is nothing wrong with punishment when it is applied thoughtfully and judiciously. Finally, I never liked shooting a rabid dog. I did it to protect society as a whole from a threat. Sometimes it requires a person to do the very difficult but ultimately good thing to protect the whole from an individual part that is a danger.
The Death Penalty is a means to protect society at large from individuals who no longer keep faith with our social contract. These individuals deserve the right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of their peers. Once found guilty they deserve a number of appeals to ensure that justice in fact has been done. They then deserve if all parties agree a punishment that is neither cruel nor unusual. Opponents of the penalty would most certainly agree with all of this up to but not including the termination of a life. I wonder why they are so passionate about the criminal's rights and seem to care so little for this person's victims both past and future? How about funneling some of that passion into changing cultures and societies that produce such criminals? Why not advocate for victims who were not afforded such basic liberties or consideration by the criminal you want kept alive?
It boils down to simple logic. If you are against the death penalty then do two things. Vote for those who think like you do, if enough feel your way it will be banned. Second, don't do things that will make it more likely you and yours will be punished in such a manner.