Nathan Tabor
Abortion right, death penalty wrong?
By Nathan Tabor
The legitimate attempt to establish justice through law is one hallmark of enlightened civilization. All too often, however, the reasoning used to advance that worthy goal becomes convoluted.
According to the ACLU, for example: "The death penalty is the greatest denial of civil liberties." Yet the ACLU also fights for the right of women to kill their babies before they are even born. Thus, those self-styled humanitarian crusaders for justice, who claim they want to protect one human life, also wish to end another unjustly.
If you ever studied logic, you should quickly see the fallacy of this argument. What does an unborn baby in the womb have in common with a murderer or a robber, a rapist or a child molester, a kidnapper or a terrorist? The answer is absolutely nothing!
That child didn't ask to be conceived and that child didn't ask to be aborted. That child wants to live. But the person on Death Row knew the difference between right and wrong, and yet chose to commit the crime that put him there.
Those on the Left are hypocritical in their argument. They want to protect the guilty, while saying it's OK to kill those helpless victims who can't defend themselves.
Now, our position on the right is logical: we are fighting to protect the innocent while punishing the guilty killers and other criminals.
Wake up, Liberals. Your logic, or lack thereof, is dangerous — and honestly, it's downright uneducated.
Most of the decent, honest folks who support the death penalty are also pro-life, pro-gun and pro-God. They are not mean and brutal people, but they see the death penalty as an unpleasant but necessary component of an effective criminal justice system. These law-abiding Conservatives believe that there are three basic reasons why the death penalty is both right and necessary.
First, on moral grounds, the death penalty is just because it emphasizes the intrinsic value of all human life, and it punishes the enormity of the crime that wastes it. According to the Bible, God established the death penalty for murder because mankind bears the image of God. But whether one comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition or from one of the world's many pagan cultures, capital punishment has been used universally from time immemorial. That is because all people instinctively understand that the one who would unjustly deprive another of his most precious possession, life itself, has no moral right to keep and enjoy his own life.
Second, as a pragmatic consideration, the death penalty does in fact deter some people from committing heinous crimes, simply because they stop to consider the terrible consequences of their actions. True, the fear of capital punishment will not deter everyone. But it will deter some, and who can say how many innocent lives that basic fear factor has saved throughout history? Those hardened criminals who refuse to be deterred will also refuse to be rehabilitated and do not deserve to live.
Finally, as a practical economic matter, our society cannot afford to support hardened criminals for life. These violent felons add nothing to our common good and must be locked away to protect the public safety, at a cost in excess of $22,000 apiece per year, on average. By what leap of logic should law-abiding citizens be required to pay for these incorrigible criminals' food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, not to mention the cost of the guards and maximum-security prisons needed to contain them?
I believe that capital punishment should be administered humanely, fairly and only for the most serious of crimes. It may be true that the death penalty is gruesome, and by some it may even be considered evil. But if so, it is a necessary evil for the preservation of a stable, civilized society.
© Nathan Tabor
The legitimate attempt to establish justice through law is one hallmark of enlightened civilization. All too often, however, the reasoning used to advance that worthy goal becomes convoluted.
According to the ACLU, for example: "The death penalty is the greatest denial of civil liberties." Yet the ACLU also fights for the right of women to kill their babies before they are even born. Thus, those self-styled humanitarian crusaders for justice, who claim they want to protect one human life, also wish to end another unjustly.
If you ever studied logic, you should quickly see the fallacy of this argument. What does an unborn baby in the womb have in common with a murderer or a robber, a rapist or a child molester, a kidnapper or a terrorist? The answer is absolutely nothing!
That child didn't ask to be conceived and that child didn't ask to be aborted. That child wants to live. But the person on Death Row knew the difference between right and wrong, and yet chose to commit the crime that put him there.
Those on the Left are hypocritical in their argument. They want to protect the guilty, while saying it's OK to kill those helpless victims who can't defend themselves.
Now, our position on the right is logical: we are fighting to protect the innocent while punishing the guilty killers and other criminals.
Wake up, Liberals. Your logic, or lack thereof, is dangerous — and honestly, it's downright uneducated.
Most of the decent, honest folks who support the death penalty are also pro-life, pro-gun and pro-God. They are not mean and brutal people, but they see the death penalty as an unpleasant but necessary component of an effective criminal justice system. These law-abiding Conservatives believe that there are three basic reasons why the death penalty is both right and necessary.
First, on moral grounds, the death penalty is just because it emphasizes the intrinsic value of all human life, and it punishes the enormity of the crime that wastes it. According to the Bible, God established the death penalty for murder because mankind bears the image of God. But whether one comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition or from one of the world's many pagan cultures, capital punishment has been used universally from time immemorial. That is because all people instinctively understand that the one who would unjustly deprive another of his most precious possession, life itself, has no moral right to keep and enjoy his own life.
Second, as a pragmatic consideration, the death penalty does in fact deter some people from committing heinous crimes, simply because they stop to consider the terrible consequences of their actions. True, the fear of capital punishment will not deter everyone. But it will deter some, and who can say how many innocent lives that basic fear factor has saved throughout history? Those hardened criminals who refuse to be deterred will also refuse to be rehabilitated and do not deserve to live.
Finally, as a practical economic matter, our society cannot afford to support hardened criminals for life. These violent felons add nothing to our common good and must be locked away to protect the public safety, at a cost in excess of $22,000 apiece per year, on average. By what leap of logic should law-abiding citizens be required to pay for these incorrigible criminals' food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, not to mention the cost of the guards and maximum-security prisons needed to contain them?
I believe that capital punishment should be administered humanely, fairly and only for the most serious of crimes. It may be true that the death penalty is gruesome, and by some it may even be considered evil. But if so, it is a necessary evil for the preservation of a stable, civilized society.
© Nathan Tabor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
