Please keep in mind that this blog often has comments and statements directly from the women on death row. Statements of grief, statements of innocence, statements of regret and sorrow. If bearing audience to these women's feelings, my opinions or those of commenters offends you please do not read on.
Death Penalty Rant
By: Hank Bohannon

Religious people claim that the Bible is the answer book to all of life’s questions, but I think history is a better teacher. If we use history as an example, and if we use history as a guide, there is no compelling argument to advocate any form of capital punishment. Discussing capital punishment is a topic that involves many different aspects, including socio-economic issues as well as race relations, thus such an article can be quite exhaustive, so clearly I am not able to discuss every detail concerning the issue. I only want to discuss a few of the major components.

Some claim that we should still use the Bible’s rule of an eye for an eye. Back in the days when there were no methods of gathering fingerprints, or gathering DNA or gathering blood samples, such a rule seemed necessary to mete out some form of justice. But with such technological advancements, using such a rationale seems highly unsophisticated and determined to not pursue the path that does not lead to intellectual stimulation.

In addition, those who like to use “an eye for an eye” standard are clearly hypocritical. The Bible clearly states that a woman that commits adultery should be stoned on the spot, but oddly enough nobody advocates such a sentence today. Also, the Bible states that a child that disrespects his/her parents should also be stoned. Once again, this practice is not legally or religiously acceptable today. There is no moral or intellectual high ground that the religious people can stand on when it comes to using any sort of religious text as an example of administrating judicial standards.

During the Middle Ages when some peon committed a crime—whether it be a simple theft or a homicide—it was common practice for that person to be swiftly executed and to have that person’s body parts strewn all over the city. The local magistrates wanted to make it clear that crime would not be tolerated. But the odd thing is that there is no evidence that such measures deterred crime. The reason is simple: violence is the father of violence.

Most crimes, especially in regards to homicides, usually happen in the spur of the moment. The parties involved do not stop to think about the ramifications. That is the major reason why capital punishment is not a deterrent to crime. The death penalty is supposed to cause the criminal(s) to stop and think about their actions, but that is clearly not the anatomy of a crime. It is on the same level of thought as saying, “in order to get rid of drunk driving accidents, we will get rid of automobiles.”

In essence, the death penalty is an oversimplified argument used to settle a complicated action

About the author: I like discussing history and politics, and I have a college degree in both. Please visit my site at http://www.xtraxtraxtra.com. Thank you.