Columnist Dennis Prager's article "Murderers Should Die" was erudite and thought-provoking.
However, I adamantly disagree with his argument. To begin with, I resent his insinuation that opponents of the death penalty have misplaced compassion for murderers, or that death-penalty opponents have no respect for life. In fact, I oppose the death penalty because it is flawed, unjust, and unnecessary.
Flawed: The death penalty places too much power in the State, an imperfect association in the wrongly convicted are saved by resolute appeals. Prager minimizes miscarriages of justice in capital cases, yet in Illinois in 1999, thirteen of the twenty-five men on death row were wrongly convicted and later exonerated by DNA evidence. Reports crop up frequently or the wrongly convicted set free from death row. The finality of the death penalty, marred by human fallibility, creates the risk that the innocent may be wrongly executed.
Unjust: I respect the Torah, but to execute the Torah's justice to the T would be cruel and contrary to the will of God. According to the Torah, anyone who commits idolatry, adultery, theft, and other crimes must be put to death, not just murderers. Even those who worked on the Sabbath would be executed. If anyone demands the death of murderers because it is a standard in the Torah, then we must in turn execute people for violating many other commandments. That is an extreme position which I cannot support.
Unnecessary: As a Christian, I believe that Christ's death on the Cross atones for the bloodguilt of committing sin, whether idolatry, adultery, or murder. Every death that every sinner is condemned to die, Christ died in substitution. Human execution cannot complement God's ultimate sacrifice. Societies still must maintain laws and deterrents for criminals, but the death penalty as retribution is unnecessary.
The last reason is a religious belief, but a valid argument against the death penaly not steeped in misplaced compassion for the murder or devoid of respect for life.