In Response to "Death Penalty: Justice or Murder?"

The author of this piece puts forth the standard arguments against the death penalty. She gives her opinions but does not offer much in the way of argument. It would have been a better article if she had broken her opinions into paragraphs and argued her points. I am not saying the article was bad only that it was difficult to read and seemed like a first draft instead of a finished product. The way she worded her opinions were good and the reader can tell that she genuinely believes them. She seems intelligent. I just think she could have done better.

Some of the basic arguments against capital punishment are: it costs too much to keep someone on death row for years; it doesn't deter; and we could just as well give a killer a life sentence. To this I reply: it costs too much only because we have not placed rational time limits on the appeals process; the issue isn't deterring future killers, but justice for the murder victim; life in prison means the murderer is likely to live the same way in prison as he lived in the free world.

I believe in the classical school of criminal justice. The punishment should fit the crime. I do not mean literally an eye for an eye. I do not believe in sinking to the level of a criminal and punishing law breakers in kind. Revenge is not justice. What I am talking about is retribution. A just society must punish criminals in proportion to the damage they have done. What possible penalty could be proportionate to the crime of murder but the forfeiture of the murderer's own life? In the case of premeditated murder, in which there is no question of guilt and no extenuating circumstances, capital punishment should be the standard penalty.