8217;d never be able to do again? I would. Not only is it a matter of the family’s need for reprisal, but also society’s administering of justice. Imposing the death penalty forces the murderer to take responsibility for his actions. Punishment should equal harm done. Did the murdered not have a right to life? One of our most fundamental doctrines in this country says so. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” In stripping another of his basic rights, a murderer forfeits his own rights. If only we could bring back the victim, after the trial, the sentence, and the release, when the murderer is loose, on the streets, ready, willing, and able to reek havoc once more. What would the victim say? We’d have committed another murder. We kill them again, those victims of murder. Many people present shallow arguments against the death penalty. “We are no better if we kill them,” the puritanical argue. “Life in prison is just as effective and far less cruel.” This is very true. True, that is, if one fails to take into account all the murders committed within a prison and upon escape. Thirteen thousand Americans are murdered each year by released and paroled criminals. Also, keeping them in prison costs $1.2-3.6 million more than imposing the death penalty. Punishing people by incarceration is ineffective and usually results in criminals being released back into society. “And if we convict an innocent person, what then?” the skeptics cry. Yes, what then? We make an exchange, or, rather a compromise, for our safety. This risk of executing an innocent person is our opportunity cost. One must keep in mind that 38% of murder cases result in a death sentence, but only .1% of that 38% are carried out. People die from car wrecks every day. The people who killed them didn’t mean to do so. Why impose a standard of perfection only on our justice system? “Violence doesn̵...
