Cecil Lankford
                                             Eng. 200 MW 3-4:30



                        CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


     In a recently televised debate between presidential
  
candidates from the two major parties, one of the candidates whose 
  
anti-death penalty views are well known was asked if he would 
  
still be against the death penalty if the victim of a rape murder 
  
was his wife. His response was that he was against the death 
  
penalty.
  
     The question posed to the candidate was obviously intended to 
  
rouse support for the other candidate by forcing a negative 
  
emotional response from the public. Crimes for which the death
  
penalty could be applied nearly always elicit a strong emotional 
  
response. This same emotional response affects our judgement when 
  
we consider proper punishment for these crimes. It therefore comes 
  
as no surprise that recent polls in California  indicate that 
  
there is large support for the use of the death penalty as 
  
punishment for certain serious crimes.
  
     Increased  media attention to the subject of crime during 
  
this election year has contributed to the publics' perception that 
  
crime is completely out of control in this country.  One reason 
  
given for the large amount of crime in our streets is the 
  
ineffectiveness of our laws and our judicial system. The popular 
  
solution to the crime problem is harsher punishments for criminals 
  
which includes the use of capital punishment for the more serious 
  
crimes.
  
     Those who advocate the use of capital punishment cite 
  
different reasons for their position on the issue. One popular 
  
reason used in support is that the killing of the criminal 
  
protects society by insuring that the criminal never is allowed to 
  
return to society to commit another crime. It is true that a dead 
  
criminal will not go out in society and kill again however the 
  
sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole 
  
accomplishes the same result without requiring the state to take a 
  
human life.
  
     Capital punishment is also believed to be a deterant to 
  
others who might commit capital crimes. This sounds very 
  
reasonable, however recent studies of FBI statistics have shown 
  
that the homicide rate in states that have not abolished the death 
  
penalty is nearly twice that of those states that have abolished 
  
the death penalty.1
  
     Proponents of the death penalty also remind us that there is 
  
a very large financial burden placed on society by the prisoner 
  
that is placed in prison for life.2 In response to those who feel 
  
we can save money with the death penalty, all I can say is that 
  
there are situations when the taking of a human life could be 
  
justified. The protection of ones family from an immediate deadly 
  
threat is one example. However financial considerations should 
  
have absolutely no place in the decision to take a human life. 
  
Hired killers kill for financial gain, society should not share in 
  
this disgusting behaviour.
  
     Murder is a crime in our society not because of the grief it 
  
causes. If it were, then the murder of someone without any family 
  
or friends would be a lesser crime than the murder of one with 
  
friends and family. But this is not the case. In both 
  
circumstances the murderer has killed and if found guilty will be 
  
punished for his crime of killing another. 
  
     The bottom line is that murder is a crime because it is 
  
morally wrong to take a human life unless absolutely necessary. 
  
The circumstances that could justify society in the taking of a 
  
human life should be that no other alternatives to deal with the 
  
problem of punishment of the criminal and the protection of 
  
society from the criminal exist. However there are solutions to 
  
both the problem of the  punishment of the criminal and the future 
  
protection of society from the criminal. Spending the rest of ones 
  
life in a cage with the dregs of society is a severe punishment 
  
and the sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole 
  
is a currently available and practiced option in the sentencing of 
  
criminals.  
  
     If we as a society make a rational decision to take a human 
  
life, irreguardless of the level of disgust with which we view 
  
that life, and if the taking of that life is not an absolute 
  
necessity for the protection of society, we are as morally 
  
unjustified as the criminal we seek to punish. We should 
  
concentrate our efforts on making effective nonlethal punishments 
  
and protective systems rather than taking the emotionally 
  
appealing and immoral alternative that the death penalty offers.