torturers, and inflict other degrading punishments on the convicted (Nathanson 133). Furthermore, we would
have to betray traitors, and kill multiple murderers again and again which are obviously impossible to impose.
Since we cannot reasonably punish all crimes according to this ideal, it is irrational to impose execution as a
required punishment for murder. Criminals do deserve to be punished, and the severity of punishment should be
appropriate to the harm they have caused the innocent. But the severity of punishment must have limits limits
enforced by both justice and our common human dignity (Barzilai). Governments that enforce these limits do not
use premeditated, violent homicide as a tool in society. There are people who have lost a loved one to murder
that believe that they cannot rest until the murderer is executed, but not all of those inflicted with such a loss feel
the same. Coretta Scott King said, as one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder
and assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital
offenses. An evil deed is not remedied by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of
human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder (Barzilai). Victims to the loss of a loved one do not
need to reduce themselves to the evil level of the murderer, but those families need to replace their anger and
hate towards the criminal in a more healthy manner for both the offender and the survivors. Although it can be
easier said than done, the right to live belongs to all of the members of society regardless of what crime one has
committed. it is not the right of the government, nor the right of any individual to inflict such cruel and hateful
punishments onto another human being, for we are like them. Beyond the statistics we can see a brutal and
unnecessary punishment. There must be limits to the power that a government has, as well as the power
individuals in a society have. We degrade the murderer, yet the supporters of capital punishment reserve the
passion to kill. As sane people with a respect for human life and dignity, we must not turn into the barbarous
murderer some of us fight to kill. According to Stephen Nathanson, we must set an example of the behavior we
find acceptable in society. He goes on to say that even though this person has done wrong and even though we
may be angry, outraged, and indignant with him, we will nonetheless control ourselves in a way that he did not.
We will not kill him (137). We must not contradict the principle that murder is wrong, including the murder of a
criminal. We must not kill, nor must any government hold the power to take a human life, no matter what the
crime. Bibliography Amnesty International. Against the Death Penalty. http:www.amnesty.org Barzilai, Harel.
The Death Penalty. http://www.hartford-hwd.com Dieter, Richard. The Practical Burdens of Capital
Punishment. Mappes 144 149. Glover, Jonathan. Deterrence and Murder. Mappes 138 141. Mappes,
Thomas A., and Jane S. Zambaty. Social Ethics: Morality and Social Policy. Unites States: The McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc. 1997. Marshall, Thurgood. Dissenting Opinion in Gregg v. Georgia. Mappes 121 124
Nathanson, Stephen. An Eye for an eye. Mappes 132-138. NCADP. http://www.ncadp.org Smart,
Christopher. Innocence Found on Death Row. http://weeklywire.com Warner, Ralph. Killing Carelessly.
http://www.crimemagazine.com