An argument for the death penalty based on the sacredness of human life.
The paper outlines the arguments on both sides of the death penalty debate and asserts that both sides have powerful arguments that support their cases. The paper argues, however, that the anti-death penalty argument is founded on flawed assumptions, because it ultimately trivializes human life by not taking a firm stand on it. The paper admits that there will never be a perfect system, but contends that to abolish the death penalty because of a fear of a mistake will cause more victims, decrease values, and trivialize human life. The paper asserts that if we are indifferent to murder, the fabric of our society will disintegrate.
“The proponents of the death penalty argue that it is the only real justice when it comes to dealing with murder. Their premise is that we live in a world where there are certain moral absolutes that have to be enforced. One of these absolutes is the sacredness of human life. Anyone that takes a human life, therefore, should be dealt the harshest punishment we can conceive of — which is death. Ultimately, death penalty proponents believe that there is absolute evil, and that society must therefore deal with it in the most firmest way. The only punishment that fits the crime of taking a life is the killer’s loss of life. The punishment, in other words, must fit the crime. (Gelernter)”