es as a potent reminder to the value and sacredness of human life by imposing the harshest penalty possible for destroying it. Capital punishment abolitionists adamantly claim that the sacredness of life is the very reason that the death penalty is morally wrong. They claim that it is unjust to take a life from a human being. A quotation by Thomas Sowell adequately refutes this, he says:"If we took this kind of reasoning seriously, it would be wrong to take back by force what a robber has seized. It would be wrong to imprison who had illegally imprisoned someone else. It would be wrong for the police to drive above the speed limit to pursue someone who was speeding (Winters 67.)"If human life is indeed as sacred and precious as anti-death penalty advocates claim, why do they support leniency for those who so maliciously and irreverently decide to take the life or lives of their victims? It seems that the very point of the argument is contradictory to what it stands for. Another less than convincing point that opponents use for morality purposes is the fact that the system could be biased by race or sex (Gottfried 43.) This is an arguable point, but it does not mean that the people that do get the death penalty deserve it less just because someone that does deserve it goes free or just receives life imprisonment. It does however, create a strong argument for the mandatory application of capitol punishment. The legality of the death penalty is always under attack by its opponents. Abolitionists claim that the death penalty falls under the category of cruel and unusual punishment which is condemned under the eight amendment (McCuen 72.) But clear evidence in support of the death penalty is found in other instances, one of which is the fifth amendment. The fifth amendment says:"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless a presentme...
