After my vehement defense of Thanksgiving it seems like a defense of Christmas might well be in order. After all, I'm all for keeping my name in Christmas at all costs and the use of the holiday's name certainly is under fire. However, I trust that Christmas is going to stay Christmas for quite some time, so I think I'll let that subject slide for now. Instead, I'd like to write about something wholly unrelated to anything - the death penalty.
Saddam Hussein has recently claimed that he has no fear of being executed for his numerous crimes against humanity. Not an especially surprising revelation for a man who is clearly clinically insane. In fact, thanks to South Park, we all know that Saddam has no reason to fear death because he is sleeping with Satan.
But there is a larger issue here. Are there crimes so terrible that they are worthy of the death penalty? It seems to me that mass genocide (i.e. the holocaust) or other such atrocities certainly merit the death penalty. Yet some will argue that such an extreme penalty is inhumane or excessive. Personally I'm not sure that it would be possible to invent a penalty that was too severe for such terrible crimes against humanity.
Realistically, however, there aren't many people around who have committed crimes that quite reach this magnitude. The question then becomes, can the death penalty be applied to such run-of-the-mill crimes like brutal murder? It seems to me that the answer in these cases is still - "Yes."
The fact is, when you have made the conscious choice to deprive someone of life, you forfeit your own rights. It's not as if the death penalty is some mystery of which no one is aware. As such, the moment a criminal takes another's life, he gives up control over his own life accepting the potential consequences.
Some will argue that the death penalty is an example of cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited under the Eighth Amendment. However, in a historical context, the fact is that many of the Founding Fathers accepted the practice of capital punishment when they wrote the Bill of Rights, which seems to invalidate this argument. Rather, the death penalty simply applies the concept that the punishment ought to fit the crime - a brutal, premeditated crime deserves a decisive penalty.
Another reason that the death penalty proves effective is the fact that it can serve as a deterrent. While evidence on this matter is mixed, if the threat of the death penalty makes even one potential murderer think twice, that is good enough for me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating the death penalty be used in any and all circumstances. It should be used extremely judiciously. I might even be in favor of requiring DNA evidence prior to the imposition of the death sentence. However, for the most part, it's not as if juries go around dishing out the death penalty every week. Moreover, with the average amount of time spent on death row well over 10 years, there is plenty of time for the appeals process.
As tempting as it is to argue that the death penalty can only do more harm than good, denying the jury the very opportunity to impose society's ultimate penalty unnecessarily ties a jury's hands when faced with the most violent criminal offenders, which does not, on the whole, benefit society.
