|
| |
Over the past year or so, we have seen some horrible things done by
horrible people. Many innocent people have died, and many others have
suffered.
Let's finally face it. Some people would make the world a better place
by dying. I believe we should indeed make the world a better place to live
by eliminating those who have determined that they cannot live in the same world
with decent people.
The terrorists, the snipers--they don't deserve to live in the same world with the rest of us. They
have made it clear that their goals are to kill and destroy, and they intend to
do it whenever they are given the chance.
Yet, there are some people who do not want to do what is needed to handle
such scum. They will boo hoo when we catch and deal with such people, and
even go to the point of making silly excuses for murder.
So the anti-death penalty people can save some time, I'll respond to some of
their arguments here.
- "Killing the criminal will not bring back dead people." Now,
I ask, who has ever argued that the death penalty brings back dead
people? I've never heard anybody make that argument in my entire life.
When anti-death penalty people make this argument, it only shows that they
have too little to argue with--that is why they argue against an argument that
is never made. The only people I've ever heard the "won't bring the
victim back to life" argument from are the death penalty opponents themselves.
(More on this below.)
- "It is wrong to kill people, period." So people like Hitler
should have lived? If you see a person killing people he should be
allowed to live? You death penalty opponents don't believe this absolute
statement, and you need to stop making it.
- "Having the death penalty cheapens life." No, having the
death penalty indicates how highly we value life, and it shows how little we
tolerate those who in fact don't value life.
-
"The death penalty is legalized murder." This is
where death penalty opponents try to make a legal argument and end up showing
that they know nothing about legal arguments. Legal killing is not
murder. Murder is a legal term to describe the unlawful taking of
life. Get a clue, people: "legalized murder" is a contradiction in
terms.
-
"If it's wrong for people to take life, then it's wrong for
the state to take life." This argument is so silly it makes me
wonder whether the people making it are just plain stupid or hugely dishonest.
They don't believe it, anyway. After all, it's wrong for me to steal
money from people--so does that mean governments cannot tax? Can
governments not impose and collect fines for traffic violations? It's
wrong for me to lock somebody up in a room for years, so does that mean
governments can't put people in jail? This argument totally ignores the
purpose and nature of an action, whether it be by the government or by an
individual. How can some people seriously compare cold blooded murder of
totally innocent people with the death penalty as applied to somebody who has
committed horrible crimes? They are not equivalent acts.
-
"Innocent people might be executed." This is a
good point, when it applies to innocent people. Nobody in his right mind
believes innocent people should be executed. But when it comes to people
who are unquestionably guilty, this argument doesn't apply.
-
"We should not execute people because they might have had a
bad childhood." Give me a break! This argument makes such a
blanket assumption that it is insulting to people who have had unhappy
childhoods but still don't go on killing sprees.
-
"If you really want to punish somebody, use life in prison,
because that's harsher than the death penalty." This is supposed to
be an argument coming from people who proclaim their compassion? They are
proposing what they say is a worse punishment? Death penalty
opponents who use this argument show their complete intellectual dishonesty.
It's also instructive to note that while death penalty opponents make this
argument, they never seem grasp that "imprisonment won't bring people back to
life." Or does this mean that the anti-death penalty crowd believes
imprisonment will bring the victims back to life? Also, if it's
wrong for an individual to kidnap and lock up somebody, isn't it wrong for the
government to do it to? (Death penalty opponents never seen to address
this argument, although it's very similar to their "if it's wrong to kill,
then it's wrong for governments to kill" argument.)
-
"The death penalty, once carried out, is irrevocable."
Yes, that's the point.
-
"It takes too long and is too expensive to execute somebody
after conviction." The people who make this argument are,
interestingly, the ones who seek to postpone the execution and make it drag on
for years and sometimes decades! And, yet, the same people who make this
argument are the same ones who propose as an alternative life imprisonment,
along with the costs involved in that.
|
