The death penalty debate has risen once again, and it has Republicans and Conservatives split. I personally am a firm supporter of the death penalty. I am also firmly pro-life. Let’s look at some common reasons people oppose the death penalty and I will provide responses to each argument and explain how I can be pro-life and in favor of the death penalty.
“It is not fiscally responsible to execute someone. It costs millions of dollars due to appeals and other costly things like building the execution chamber. We should just sentence these criminals to life in prison.”
First of all, I acknowledge that it costs a lot of money, but it should not. The cost is high because the system is corrupt. Are we really going to use a broken and corrupted judicial system as justification to keep barbarous criminals alive? I could argue that it is not fiscally responsible to put someone in prison for life. If a criminal has committed an act so heinous to consider life in prison, why should we spend tax dollars to give them food and shelter? If the argument is that it’s prohibitively expensive to pay for the executions, would it not also be expensive to house a person in jail for life? Taxpayers are contributing to one or the other.
I still believe there is some justice left in the world. I don’t think the cost of execution is a good argument to justify repeal of the death penalty. I could claim cruel and unusual punishment as a reason to keep a criminal from being locked up like an animal for the rest of their lives, all while wasting tax dollars to breathe the air you and I, as innocent people, share.
“You already said that you believe the system is corrupt, so won’t that lead to wrongful convictions?”
I did say that, so why I would want to give the authority of death over to a judicial system that I admit is corrupt? I would have to ask, are we just using the “corrupt judicial system” as an excuse for not supporting the death penalty? Would more people support it if our judicial system was in fact only convicting those who are guilty, and not wrongfully convicting those who are innocent?
“If we can just keep one innocent person from being executed, then isn’t it worth repealing?”
I’ll accept this question as a very reasonable and legitimate one. The concern about wrongful conviction assumes that there is a chance that EVERY person on death row could be innocent or wrongly accused. There are some criminals who absolutely have every bit of evidence against them. I’m not talking about a hair from the convict being found on a pillow, in the dining room where the crime occurred. I’m talking about a murderer who was caught on tape (Yes, I understand videos can be edited), or seen by two or more witnesses, who commits a crime worthy of death.
If there is undeniable evidence that the person committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, then why take away the punishment of death? I have no doubt that there are innocent people on death row, but it is very possible and realistic to separate those who have undeniable evidence against them, versus those who have been convicted based on ridiculous, unsubstantiated “evidence”. This is why we have the appeals process in place so people can have more than one chance to prove innocence in the event of a guilty verdict.
“It’s immoral to put someone to death. It is not Christian at all of us.”
Alright, this is my favorite one. If one is to use this particular point as justification, then he or she needs to be very consistent. If our laws, especially moral laws, are going to be based on Christianity and morality, then we should also be consistent with marriage, drugs, taxes, and countless other issues. I’ve heard people use Christianity as their defense to repeal the death penalty, but they refuse to apply that same moral principle when it comes to defending marriage between a man and a woman, abortion, and many other social and fiscal issues. There’s a large lack of consistency in that argument so I don’t consider it valid.
One of the Ten Commandments instructs us, “Thou shall not murder” and this is what people cite when they say that the death penalty is anti-Christian.
The question here is whether or not it’s considered murder and immoral to put someone to death. No, it isn’t, according to the Bible, since that’s almost always used by Christians regarding the current point at hand. Genesis 9:6, says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image.” This gives the fundamental justification for the death penalty and it was never revoked anywhere in scripture after it was established. There are other scripture verses and passages to back this point, but I think this serves as a solid moral basis.
“You said you are pro-life. You can’t say you are pro-life and support the death penalty.”
Yes, I can, and I do. This is the most insane argument of them all, mainly used by those on the political left. I support the right to life of an innocent person that has not been convicted of a crime worthy of death. If one has maliciously taken the life of, or murdered, another person, this person deserves death. Based on moral principles and our current laws, babies are our most precious and vulnerable and deserve protection, while murderers are bad people who have revoked their privilege to live by committing evil crimes. It is that simple.
To end this, I will add one last interesting point. Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution, enumerates 18 powers of the federal government. One of these powers is, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion.” This particular power does not specifically state anything about the death penalty, but it does not have to. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the authority to punish people who commit treason, which has been done in the past. One man, known as Benedict Arnold, was put to death for committing treason. Benedict Arnold is relevant to this discussion because his case, along with other historical cases, is what we commonly understand as “precedence.” It was clear that the Founders believed that the death penalty was not only moral, but necessary for certain crimes, and the punishment was carried out swiftly. And while the death penalty was not expressly stated in the Constitution, the precedent set by the Founder’s actions illustrates to us that they did intend the death penalty to be a moral, fiscal, and even Constitutional punishment.
Aside from our system being corrupted, which can be changed and restored, there is no consistent and logical argument to repeal the death penalty.