2. LEARN ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
"The death penalty deters crime"
The Argument: The threat of execution is enough to make criminals think twice about committing a capital crime. Professional criminals, like everyone else, are aware of the consequences of their actions; the existence of the death penalty will make such criminals think twice. From a utilitarian perspective, the taking of one life may be justified if it prevents the taking of other, innocent lives, whether through the incapacitation of the killer or through the deterrence of other potential killers.
The Response: It is irrational to assume that a criminal is going to carefully weigh the consequences of his actions before commiting a criminal act. Clearly, by the time he has decided to commit his crime, he has already disregarded other forms of punishment besides the death penalty, such as lengthy imprisonment. He is also likely to assume that he will not be caught anyway. Criminals to whom the death penalty is administered are anti-social individuals, acting contrary to and despite of the rules that law-abiding citizens live by. How is another law going to deter a lawless individual? Besides, the statistics on the matter are inconclusive, given the enormous number of variables that must be accounted for in determining why crimes are or are not committed.
"Those close to the victim deserve justice and will be given peace of mind."
The Argument: A murder shatters many lives, not just the victim's. Isn't justice for all an underlying principle of our legal system? Often, friends and families of the victim are tormented by the notion that the killer lives while the victim cannot; what kind of system values the killers' rights above their grief?
The Response: The values of our justice system place societal good above individual cries for revenge, however understandable they may be. Just as we don't put victims' families in the jury box, so too do we not allow them to determine sentences. Although families and friends of victims suffer terribly, executing the killer does nothing to bring back their loved one, the true source of their grief.
"The death penalty saves money."
The Argument: Many criminals live decades in prison making no contribution to society. Why should the tax dollars of honest non-murdering citizens be used to keep the next Jeffrey Dahmer in jail? That money should be put to better use: in the schools, to lower taxes, to reduce the debt.
The Response: A little-known fact is that it often costs more to execute a criminal than it would to keep him/her alive in jail. How can that be, you ask? Well the answer lies in two parts: (1) before a criminal can be executed, he/she gets several opportunities to appeal, and all of those transcripts, court officers, and (often state-funded) defense lawyers cost money; and (2) with all the added security, the per-person cost of keeping inmates on death row far exceeds the per-person cost of a normal prison.
"An eye for an eye."
The Argument: The Bible prescribes that an eye be taken for an eye, that punishment should fit the crime and therefore those who take another life don't deserve their own. When a society opts to punish murder with death, its decision emphasizes the fairness of laws and the consequences of actions.
The Response: As far as the biblical reference is concerned, there are many elements present in the Bible that we, as Americans, have forsaken (when was the last time you went to a stoning?). Moreover, while the Bible sanctions the death penalty, subsequent passages emphasize the need that it be applied sparingly and judiciously (even among murderers).
