Throughout human history, there have been some transgressions, some crimes, some acts that are so intolerable, so horrendous, so offensive, that the only possible response, the only possible punishment, is the ultimate one: death. That punishment used to be (and in some parts of the world, still is) used far too liberally, as in burning "heretics" as was done in Europe in the Middle Ages and even in the Renaissance. Even today, some acts, like converting from Islam to, well, anything, will get you burned, shot, or tossed off a roof in places like Iran.
While there's still a place in a modern justice system for this ultimate penalty, the practice has many critics, and many of their arguments make a degree of sense: the possibility of a wrongfully convicted person being executed, for example. No system is perfect; people are wrongfully convicted sometimes, and while you can be released from prison, you can't be released from death. Some people, though, deserve nothing less. See the recent murder of Iryna Zarutska, and the horrifying video of her final moments (I will not display that here, or anywhere), and the vicious animal that attacked her.
Let's look at three aspects of the arguments around capital punishment: the practical, the moral, and the service of justice.
First, the practical arguments. Applying the death penalty here, in the United States, is a long, torturous, complex process. Appeals can drag on for decades. When the final day approaches, there are still frantic phone calls, appeals to the governor for clemency, protests, and so forth. It's also an expensive process, with the tab for both prosecution and defense often picked up by the taxpayers. Lawsuits about the legality of the death penalty are often tossed around as well, even though the Constitution specifically contemplates it, in the 5th Amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
This would appear to imply that with due process, a person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property. There's also the "cruel and unusual punishment" provision in the 8th Amendment, which today seems to be more often used to argue against certain methods (i.e., the electric chair, lethal injection) rather than the death penalty itself.
As it is practiced in the United States today, applying the ultimate penalty is, at best, difficult. There's an argument to be made that locking up even the most vicious monsters for life is a more practical argument. I'm not convinced of that, and the moral and justice arguments are in part the reason I'm not convinced.
Second, the moral argument. Granted, my perspective on this may be a tad unusual. But I do not ascribe to the rather fuzzy-headed notion that "Every person has value." There are people drawing breath today who should not be; there are people alive today who are of no more value to humanity than a dead dog. I could again refer to Iryna Zarutska's alleged killer, Osama Bin Laden, or any of the Hamas goblins who invaded Israel on October 7th, 2023. These people have surrendered their humanity. Some may disagree; moral issues can be very slippery and can vary widely from person to person, for many different reasons. But goblins, as I described above, speaking only for myself, I have no issue with them being put down as one would a rabid dog. Granted, American citizens are entitled to due process, and even the most vicious killer has the right to a trial by a jury of his/her peers. That's the law, and it's a good law. But once convicted, the ultimate penalty may be their portion, and the balance of the citizenry should be glad that people like that are no longer fouling our atmosphere by breathing the common air.
Read More: I Think We Have Enough Proof About the 'Care' Democrats Have for Women Now
Family of Charlotte Murder Victim Pay Tribute to Her With Decision About Final Resting Place
Third, the justice argument. There are two elements to this. First, there are some crimes for which any other punishment is just not sufficient. People who commit these crimes, and who have been tried and convicted - again, due process matters - as I note above, have forfeited their humanity. Justice demands a suitable penalty, for which the citizenry should cry out. Sometimes, in some cases, and again, we see crimes that are so horrible that nothing else could suffice to see justice done. Second, there is honestly a retribution aspect to all this; not only is it a matter of punishment, but to put it very bluntly, it is a matter of our citizenry's revenge upon the perpetrator of a horrible act.
Capital punishment, as it's practiced now in the United States, is a long, drawn-out process, and as I see it, the best arguments against it are the practical ones. In the past, it was far less onerous, but we shouldn't be in favor of the "You've been found guilty, so you will be taken from this room and hanged" days, as viscerally satisfying as that might be. But there has to be a middle ground. Some crimes, honestly, may be answered for no other way.
