to preserve himself and not quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind. How can murder not be immoral? Citizens under a social contract, agree not to kill only because others also agree not to kill. It is the function of penal laws to prevent murder by demonstrating to everyone that it is not in their best interest to murder. So how can the constitution be brought into this argument, since it makes no mention of capital punishment? The opposition must argue that cruel and unusual is an evolving concept. The opposition must believe that society now views capital punishment as cruel and unusual. "The phrase {cruel and unusual punishment} is dynamic and the courts must notice and consider changed standards of decent conduct marked by our great penologists, wardens, social philosophers and psychologists.All states in the United States have the ability to decide the legality of capital punishment. With the decision being made by each states' elected lawmakers, how can it be said that people now generally see the death penalty as morally wrong? If the citizens now view capital punishment as cruel and unusual, can they not decide to change it. Regardless of how a minority feels, the government works on a majority rule. Of course, a person may think it is immoral to kill someone, no matter what they have done. When I say it is retributive justice to take a life in turn for the taking of another life, it could be argued that a criminal is not able to learn a lesson since he dies as an immediate result of the punishment. How can this be called punishment if no lesson is taught? The fact of the matter is, when murder is committed, the crime cannot be taken back. The life of the victim no longer exists and nothing can bring this life back. The lesson that is taught, in turn, should be one that cannot be reversed. The lesson is l...
