possessed. In light of these observations it is logical to assume that murder, the taking of another's
life, is the most heinous of crimes. Undeniably, penalties imposed upon criminals should match the
crimes committed. Therefore, the worst crime possible, murder, should receive the worst penalty
One argument against the death penalty is the Bible tells us not to murder. Murder is the
unlawful killing of one human being by another. The death penalty is the lawful killing of a
human being after a trial by peers. So by definition the death penalty is not murder, but justice.
Furthermore, as stated by Ed Koch, a former US Government official, 'the execution of a lawfully
condemned killer is no more an act of murder than is legal imprisonment an act of kidnaping'.
Finally, the same Bible that condemns murder also advocates 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth'. This statement could be further developed to include a life for a life.
It is argued, the death penalty should be banned to prevent the execution of innocent individuals
unjustly convicted of capital murder. Statistically this has occurred; however, given the lengthy
appeals process, all but few ultimately die, innocent or guilty. The above statistic applies to all
crimes, from theft to kidnaping. Should no one be punished because of shortcomings in the judicial
system? Obviously, society could not function within a system devoid of law enforcement, because
where there is no law, there is chaos.
Some argue that death is too good for capital offenders. This position favors inhumane and
unlawful disciplinary actions like torture and life imprisonment. Though some think it not harsh
enough, the death penalty delivers justice quickly and effectively. Capital punishment is more
humane than life imprisonment. For example, a murderer...