Benjamin Cacace 
April 27, 1998

			The Necessity of the Death Penalty 



     For much of time civilizations have used the threat of death as a deterrent to committing
crimes.  This has been a very effective method of keeping one's neighbors in line.  Citizens of
the United States like to think of themselves as more civilized because they do not allow anarchy
to rule, having an established justice system rather than just common law to enforce ideals.
Punishments have become more humane, and a process has been developed to ensure that the accused 
have their rights protected.  With this improved system of justice has come the debate of what
is a good punishment.  There must be an appropriate punishment for a child who steals a candy bar
as well as a punishment for a cold-hearted murderer.  The death penalty is an effective
punishment and a morally reasonable method of punishment for terrible crimes that violate the
rights of a civilized society.  These criminals must be dealt with in order to ensure the right 
to life of the citizens of the country.

     For the protection of citizens it is necessary to do more than just punish criminals after 
they have done their damage.  These people must live their lives knowing that killing innocent
people is not acceptable and is in no way going to tolerated.  Bruce Fein, private attorney
specializing in constitutional and communications laws, said, "...[A]lthough the death penalty
certainly is not the answer to the worrisome system levels of crime today, it is a important tool
, I think, in creating a right kind of moral climate that suggests there are certain standards of
behavior that must be accepted in order to avoid degeneration of society, anarchy and a level of
bestiality..." (qtd. in Jacobs, Foster, and Siegel, "Capital Punishment" 95).  In being a tool
the death penalty serves not only as a punishment but as a standard of how important life is and
the consequences of violating that.  Although capital punishment is not going to solve all of
the problems of the judicial system, it can help in many ways.  In a very practical way it would
begin to help in preventing the prison overcrowding that is paralyzing the effectiveness of
Sentencing.  States, such as Texas, with get-tough laws have increased the average sentence from
6.5 years to 9.8 years, but actual time served dropped from 2.4 years to 1.7 years as early
releases became the solution for overcrowding and as a way to meet federal court requirements
for its prisons" (Jacobs, Foster, and Siegel, "Crime" 102).  In a case like Texas, where
criminals are getting out of prison very early because of overcrowding, the criminals are again
endangering the lives of law-abiding citizens.  From 1983-1992, 46 law enforcement officers were
killed in the United States by people with previous arrests for murder
(Jacobs, Foster, and Siegel, "Crime" 19).  This statistic shows only a small number of the people
who have been killed by convicted criminals who obviously were not punished sufficiently.
Instead of having the death penalty as an option, criminals with multiple life sentences take
space in prisons while other murderers are getting out early.  At the same time, the criminals
who are serving life sentences are given a license to kill because there is no further punishment
that can be given without the death penalty (Koch 511).  These killers although in prison still
manage to kill guards and other inmates, and there is no further punishment that can be given to
them.  "[They have] effectively been given a license to kill" (Koch 511).

     In legal terms the death penalty is not prohibited by the Constitution as opponents would
like to think.  They think because murder is not legal that the Constitution from which the laws
were based must prohibit killing.  The Fifth Amendment says that a person shall not be deprived
of life without due process of law and therefore does not prohibit the death penalty
(Jacobs, Foster, and Siegel, "Capital Punishment" 92).  The trials and appeals that come before
execution certainly qualify as due process.
     In February 1994, Justice Blackmum was the sole dissent from the Court's refusal to hear
the appeal of a Texas prisoner who was scheduled to be executed on February 23, 1994,
arguing that "no sentence of death may be constitutionally imposed...." (Jacobs, Foster,
and Siegel, "Capital Punishment" 4)
The Supreme Court's refusal to hear a case arguing the Constitutionality of the death penalty
shows how clear the issue already was in their jurisdiction.  Another common complaint about
the legality of the death penalty is that race plays a role in how often it is chosen over other
punishments.  Of theses accusations, the courts are innocent.  "The BJS (Bureau of Justice
Statistics) report that for every 1,000 whites arrested on homicide charges, approximately 16
were given a death sentence, while fewer than 12 blacks were sent to death row for every 1,000
blacks arrested for homicide" (Jacobs, Foster, and Siegel, "Capital Punishment" 94).  These
statistics show that racism is not a widespread factor in the use of the death penalty.  Execution
also does not fall under the category of cruel and unusual punishment in the Constitution.  The
death penalty need not be barbaric with modern technology.  There are methods available that are
very humane (Koch 510).  Granted, there are methods that could be argued as cruel or unusual,
such as hanging, electric chair, or the gas chamber, but those methods could be replaced by
methods that are quick and painless (Koch 510).  The only remaining issue is whether it is
morally right for a government to use death as a punishment.  The argument of the death penalty
teaching that killing is acceptable does not hold because, as James C. Anders, solicitor, fifth
judicial circuit, state of South Carolina, said, "[t]he only similarity between the unjustified
taking of an innocent life and the carrying out of a convicted murder's execution is the end
result--death" (qtd. in Jacobs, Foster, and Siegel, "Capital Punishment" 93).  When a criminal
chooses to kill a person, he has taken the life without consent or just cause. This is what makes
the killing into murder. At the same time he is willingly taking on the consequences of his
actions, including his own execution.  The Ten Commandments, which are one of the best known set
of moral standards, do not prohibit the death penalty.  They say, "You shall not murder"
(Exodus 20:13).  All that they say is wrong is the crime that most often receives the death
penalty.  Despite the fact that killing even a deserving criminal might feel wrong, it is still
what needs to be done.  The death penalty can be compared to cancer treatment in that it is not
pleasant but is necessary (Koch 510).

     Looking at all sides of the debate about the death penalty shows that it is needed as an
option for punishment of the most hideous crimes that are committed in order to protect innocent
people from becoming the victims of those who were not properly punished.  The death penalty is
legal and unlike murder is morally legitimate.  It is needed despite being unpleasant because
there is no other way to ensure that convicted murderers will not kill any guards, inmates, or
citizens while in prison or after being released.




					Works Cited 


Holy Bible New International Version. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1988. 

Jacobs, Nancy R., Carol D. Foster, and Mark A. Siegel, eds. 
INFORMATION PLUS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, CRUEL AND UNUSUAL?
Information Plus Information Series on Current Topics. Wylie, 
TX: Information Plus, 1994. 

Jacobs, Nancy R., Carol D. Foster, and Mark A. Siegel, eds. 
INFORMATION PLUS CRIME, A SERIOUS AMERICAN PROBLEM. Information Plus
Information Series on Current Topics. Wylie, TX: Information Plus, 
1994. 

Koch, Edward I. "Death and Justice." James A. Reinking, Andrew W. Hart, and Robert von der
Osten. Strategies for Successful Writing. A Rhetoric, Research Guide, Reader, and Handbook.
4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.

Additional references and thoughts that have come to bear since I originally wrote the paper are
as follows

Leviticus 24:17
If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death.

Leviticus 24:21
Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death.

These verses are a few of many that provide clear directives toward the use of the death penalty.
The difference in the death of the victim and the criminal is in the distinction between "killing"
and the command to "put to death."  That difference is that in executing God's commands,
The decision for the death is not made by one person from their own reasons, but a group acting
as government to carry out the will of God.