The Folly of the Death Penalty

    Republicans with some exceptions, are anti-abortion, often asserting that abortion is an abomination and possibly murder.  However, Republicans, again with some exceptions, are pro death penalty for those who commit heinous offenses, usually murder.  In this commentator's mind there exists a logical inconsistency with a belief system that says we must save them when they are young but its ok to kill them when they grow up.  Similairly, the generally Democratic position is equally inconsistent in their belief that abortion is a sacred right, but the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment.  In each circumstance, a human life is ended against that person's will.

        Republicans are simply wrong to support the death penalty for the following reasons.  Legal theorists have studied and formulated the various reasons and justifications for criminal punishments.  Essentially there are five societal goals for criminal sanctions, no matter what the crime:
            1.    Rehabiliate the Defendant;
            2.    Punish the Defendant by restricting his freedom;
            3.    Deter others from committing the same criminal conduct;
            4.    Protect society from the Defendant;
            5.    Retribution for the Defendant's acts.

        For example, a Defendant who commits drug offenses because he is a drug addict, it may be in the best interests of society to confine the individual to rehabilitate him and address his addiction problems.  Or, an individual is imprisoned to punish him for a larceny to deter both him and others from committing the same offense.  

        The death penalty, however, accomplishes none to these goals.  A person who commits a death eligible crime has generally commited an act so heinous that society has no interest in rehabilitating the Defendant.  The death penalty has proved to be in ineffective deterrance in that it takes years to inflict the punishment and it is often performed in a closed or secretive environment.  Defendants who have petitioned the court to make their executions public have had such requests denied.

        While death does serve as a punishment and as a protection to society by permamently removing an individual, both these goals are accomplished by life imprisonment.

        Please don't counter that life doesn't mean life.  In North Carolina, a person sentenced to life in prison is not eligible to ask for release for forty years, and even then such a release must be approved by the Governor.  As individuals who commit crimes while under the age of 18 are not eligible for the death penalty and factoring in the amount of time it takes for a death case to go to trial, an individual conviced of a death eligible case in North Carolina would be sixty years old before he/she could ask for a release.  If North Carolina can develop this system other states can also.

        This leaves retribution as the primary reason for the death penalty, a motiviation the victim's family may desire.  However, if the victim's family were to engage in vigilante justice or raise a lynch mob, they would be prosecuted.  If they are not allowed to seek retribution, then neither should the government on their behalf.        

        Do individuals who commit heinous crimes deserve death?  Yes.  But the death penalty is the one true penalty that cannot be taken back if a mistake is made, and believe me mistakes are made.  

        Finally as a conservative, I believe that Republican party is wrong in its stance on the death penalty.  As the party which ostensibly believes in limitied government, I submit it is wrong a philosophical level to then claim the power to kill its own citizens when other alternatives exist.