Death penalty

       As previously noted, the purpose of government is to maintain the fabric of society through the rule of law. To that end, we empower our governments with the ability to punish violators of the law, giving them three options: monetary penalties, loss of freedom, and execution. The last of these is the most controversial and, therefore, the one of most interest for discussion.
       The purpose of a punishment is to correct erroneous behavior. This is done in every sphere of life, from child-rearing to the work environment to legal prosecution. The implication of a correction, however, is that the offender is given the opportunity to behave correctly at a later time as a result of the punishment. Following this argument, I believe that the concept of life imprisonment is illogical. A person who loses his freedom for the rest of his life for committing an act that merits such severe punishment is automatically deprived of the opportunity to try again. It is, furthermore, fiscally irresponsible as it places a member of society who has been judged irredeemable permanently as a burden on taxpayers. Such a burden yields essentially no possible benefit, unlike a prisoner who is expected to be released at a future date and reintegrated into society.
       This leaves one of two paths in cases that merit severe punishment: imprisonment for a specific term of years or the death penalty. The reasonable length for a term of imprisonment will be left as a subject for another time. I concede that there are people who reject the idea of the death penalty categorically based on religious or ideological views. These are positions that cannot be changed by persuasion, so I won't try. However, people who accept the possibility that the death penalty is a legitimate means of punishment often argue about when it should be invoked. The only general agreement to be found here is that execution should be used as punishment for the most violent of crimes.
       I maintain that there are two types of violence: physical and mental. Murder is a no-brainer. A person who kills another (or others) in cold blood and shows no remorse merits the death penalty if his judges conclude that he can never be safely returned into the fold of society. But this is a case of strictly physical harm. I believe that the death penalty should also be applicable (as it has been in some states in the past) in cases of aggravated rape. The mental trauma inflicted on victims of rape is commonly both severe and permanent. Furthermore, unlike murder, one cannot "accidentally" rape somebody. Since aggravated rape is currently punishable with life imprisonment, I propose the substitution of this penalty with execution.
Naturally, since the death penalty is irreversible, it should be granted only in cases where no room has been left for doubt of both the severity of the crime and the incorrigibility of the perpetrator. Serial killers, serial rapists, and mass murderers should automatically qualify. It seems to me impossible to carry out repeated instances of such violence without having had a mental break that makes it impossible to function in regular society. In our own local case, that any other punishment should be considered for James Holmes is astonishing. What would be the point?
       There is one further point to consider. The purpose of execution is to remove the most dangerous members of society. If it has been concluded that such a step is necessary, it should be carried out with as much expediency as possible. This consists of two parts - speed and method. Today, an average inmate spends nearly 15 years on death row from time of sentencing to execution. This is cruel to the inmate and incredibly costly to the taxpayer. If the inmate chooses to pursue an appeal, then a death penalty case should be given priority for review. The case should be reviewed as thoroughly as possible, to be sure, using the best methods available to us, to confirm that an innocent person will not be punished, but it should be reviewed as quickly as possible as well. Once all appeals have been completed, it should be carried forth without delay.
       As to method, this is again an area where tremendous amounts of time and money have been committed to making execution more humane, with the end result seeming to be more cruel than any of the "primitive" methods known before. Both lethal injection and the electric chair are tremendously costly and take minutes to actually kill a person. During those minutes, the condemned suffers agonizing pain. Meanwhile, hanging and firing squad result in instantaneous death if performed properly, and cost almost nothing. If the spirit of the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment" clause implies that punishment should be merciful, then no greater mercy can be offered a condemned man than a swift and painless death.
I will conclude by asserting that I am not entirely comfortable with the state executing people. The justice system has been known to err and innocent men have gone to the gallows. But an innocent man is no better off living out a life in prison than he is going to his death. I do not support the death penalty because I think it is a deterrent to criminals. For those who have crossed the line far enough to merit such treatment, there are no deterrents. Given that such people exist, once caught, it is up to the state by common consent of the populace to remove them from society forever. I simply think the death penalty is the most effective solution to this unsavory problem.