I have never known someone who was brutally murdered. I have never had to wake up in the morning to the realization that someone I love was taken away from me in a way in which they should have never been taken. I've never felt that kind of grief over a loss or the anger that comes in a situation like that. I've never had to look in the face of a person who could create such horrible acts against humanity, so it's probably easy for me to unequivocally say that capital punishment in any form is wrong and should be abolished from our society completely. Yet, I would hope that saying such a thing would be easy for everyone - not just someone who's never been face to face with it.

The debate over the merits for or against the death penalty is an arduous and never ending battle, but whichever side you fall on, what it all boils down too is the same thing: killing someone is wrong. In this modern day and age, with all our knowledge of the workings of the human mind, with all our technology, with all our advancement, how can we still be living in the age of an eye for an eye? Killing is wrong, morally and legally. Capital punishment is, in essence, killing someone. With those simple statements, one should be able to deduce that capital punishment is wrong. Pope John Paul II once said, łThe dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil," and I believe that wholeheartedly.

However if simple morality issues don't get you, there are other things to be considered - such as human fallibility. In the past century, over 400 innocent people were sentenced and sent to death row. Over 20 of those innocent people were actually put to death. That may not seem like a large number, but even one wrongful death is a travesty to our nation and to humanity. It has also been proven that capital punishment is neither a deterrent to future crimes nor less expensive than sentencing a person to life imprisonment, as previously believed.

Now, The United States has always toted itself as being the leading proponent for human rights. We look down on other nations that we believe violate the rights of its people while violating and taking away the most basic human right that exists, the right to live, on a daily basis. How can we be so hypocritical?

How can we be so hypocritical? Have you ever studied the actions of our nation's government, either current or past? We founded a country on hypocrisy--"All Men Are Created Equal"? I'm fairly certain that wasn't meant to mean dollar value or by the pound, yet we bought and sold people, and we slaughtered people because their homes happened to be on our land. From day one to the deceptions of the current Bush administration, hypocrisy is a national past time--bullshit and apple pie.

Someone who has killed multiple people is not, in my opinion, someone we should be working to rehabilitate. The point here is that we should be focusing our energies elsewhere, like improving our schools and taking care of our populace. Let's concentrate on educating and rehabilitating people BEFORE they kill before we even debate the value of a life. I agree that innocent people should not be put to death (ironically a lot of anti-death penalty people are pro-war--just saying); however, shouldn't the issue then be the effectiveness of the system itself? The death penalty is designed as a deterrant, or an acceptance of sorts; if you are going to kill someone, you give up your right to live. It's a trade, and I think a fair one. People are not sentenced to death for manslaughter or self defense; they are put to death for premeditated murder. Why should society have compassion for that? Perhaps ultimately, but currently, in a society that ignores the homeless and downtrodden, why should we start trying to understand or help those who have chosen to commit, what in our minds, is the greatest crime possible?

But ok, I've already established I feel that our welfare and education systems should be reformed--how about our judicial system? Doesn't it seem crazy that a rich celebrity can get away with murder regardless of the facts, yet a civil defense attorney can't get an unlawful parking ticket repealed? I realize both ends are extreme, but there is a definite imbalance here, and a lot of it is fixable. Instead of paying millions of tax dollars on appeals, how about we just give people fair trials with adequate money going to our public defenders? Most of those innocent people sentenced to death were never really given comprehensive trials. If we do things right in the first place, this argument becomes an easier issue.

I think we can both agree that death is not something to be taken lightly. Ideally there would be no death penalty, but then again, ideally there would be no murder.