Death penalty proves fair

Transylvania students may have noticed a couple of controversial cases popping up in the news recently.

The first: Troy Davis, who was convicted of murdering a police officer in 1989. Though many people have protested against his ultimate sentence (death by lethal injection), a judge has ruled that he should die anyway.

The second: Cleve Foster, a 47-year-old former Army recruiter who was convicted of raping and murdering a woman he met at a bar in 2002. His execution has been delayed while the court considers his appeal.

Both are slightly similar cases with very different outcomes.

Capital punishment has been a long-standing controversy for as long as anyone can remember. Do we let murderers sit in prison for the rest of their lives, or do we give them the same fate that they gave their victims?

Consider the universal phrase “an eye for an eye.” It is simple to see the underlying reason for this phrase, for the thought of the death penalty relates to the never-ending controversies that exist in our world each and every day.

Some, understandably, may believe that the death penalty is “morally incorrect.” However, in order to really understand this opinion, take it from a personal standpoint.

Imagine that your brother, sister, mom or dad has been killed. Imagine that the heartless person who took your family member’s life is still sitting in a prison, alive and well.

Would you want that person’s heart to keep beating, or would you want him or her to die just like your loved one did? The victim did not get a choice to live or die, so neither should the killer.

So why is it that some judges choose to give convicts the death penalty and some don’t? It’s a mixed question of morals, integrity, state laws and guilt.

Some might be afraid that those who are given the death penalty could possibly be innocent, and some just don’t want to be the cause of another person’s death. Both are valid arguments, but neither refutes the belief that death should be the punishment for ending someone’s life.

Murder is wrong. And that is why anyone who commits such a terrible act should be given the same fate. An eye for an eye, a life for a precious life.

Advertisements

One Response to Death penalty proves fair

  1. A death penalty may satisfy a societal need. I recently learned, however, that the law of
    “an eye for an eye, a tooth…” was given as a means of limiting retribution for real or imagined offenses, rather than having a powerful tribe take any excuse to make war upon a weaker neighbor. It was not a mandate to take revenge.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: