The Death Penalty

The Code of Hammurabi

Hammurabi was the Akkadian King of Babylon who grew the Babalonian hegemony to encompass Mesopotamia in the latter part of the 18th century BC. He wrote and promulgated a code of laws that held to a belief that all suspects were innocent until proven guilty. It was also based on what history recalls as Lex Talion; the Law of retaliation or exact reciprocity.

The standard set by Hammurabi's law is the same as the most common interpretation of the principal 'an eye for an eye'. They believed it to be fair to rape the wife of a man who rapes a woman or if a man kills a child, his child would be executed. If you have extinguished the eye of another man, you lose your eye. On the surface it seems fair, but upon further scrutiny it is revealed as highly cruel and the reciprocity is often perpetrated on the innocent. The reason it is a failed philosophy is obvious, but only if you view it through the eyes of morality and the tenants Christianity.

Many modern day Liberals, most of whom hold to a Wu wei / Taoist philosophy of non retaliatory reaction or the lack there of, view the modern day version of Capitol Punishment in the same light they view Hammurabi's Lex Talionis. They believe the state has no right to execute a person who has murdered someone else. They liken such action by the state to murder. It's a cute little semantics game designed to confuse the unaware or under-informed masses in hopes they will believe that somehow killing, murder and execution are synonymous and equally unjust. When contemplating your stance on the American death penalty, do not fall victim to this lie. Many loving Christian people have a problem with Capitol punishment because of this very misunderstanding. So I will take a second to detangle things for you.

Jehovah God gave to Moses a set of ordinances numbered to ten. The sixth such commandment demands that we 'Shall not Murder'. So many times people have recited this commandment in a manner not congruous with it's true meaning. The commandment can be found in Exodus 20:13 of the King James Bible. Here the text is mistranslated as 'Thou shall not kill'. The Hebrew word here is Tirtzach (tear - tzach) which means to Murder not Kill. There is a distinction. Murder is defined as " the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought " Yet the word kill means simply the taking of life or to cause death. So it is easy to discern that the commandment prohibits murder and not killing. Killing is very often required yet murder never finds favor in the eyes of God.

When the death penalty is imposed, it is not murder, and it is NOT revenge. Execution is "to put to death; especially in compliance with a legal sentence". This is done to not only provide justice for the murdered person and their family, but also to provide a clear view for the populous of what is acceptable conduct and it ordains the act of murder to be held to the highest degree of seriousness & demanding the ultimate level of reciprocity. Rulers from every walk of life and from every age have held different acts to be deserving of execution. Yet in America today, capitol punishment is reserved for only the most heinous murders. Most states restrict the requirements of qualification for the death penalty by adding stipulations. In most states it is very rare that a person qualifies for, much less serves a death penalty. So arguments that it is over used or broadly defined are misleading and patently false.

'Little Neck'

It could easily be, successfully, argued that thirty four year old Anne Boleyn, from Norfolk was unjustly executed. A former 'fille d'honneur' or honor girl in the court of Archduchess Margaret, she was transferred to King Henry VIII's sister, the French-Queen Mary's house at age 13. While in France, she attended the meeting of King Henry VIII and the French King. It is believed that it was at this public site that King Henry VIII first noticed Anne. Despite his still yet to be annulled marriage, he impregnated Anne and took her for his wife. It is said that the precession of barges that accompanied the soon to be queen down the Thames river stretched for four miles.

The official birth proclamation was printed five months early and referred to the new babe to be as 'Prince'. So you can imagine how King Henry was sorely displeased that Anne gave birth to Princess Elizabeth. He became obsessed with fathering an heir to his throne. As a result of his determination, Anne went through a series of pregnancies, each one resulting in a more devastating result. None survived.

Soon, King Henry VIII diverted his attention from Anne toward Jane Seymour. This interest was the catalyst for the campaign to dethrone Anne by her political enemies. They convinced the King that Anne had been involved in an incestuous affair with her brother. Charged others with 'Adultery with the Queen' and trumped up charges of witchcraft against Anne. They were all charged with treason. An unlucky charge for them because treason was a charge that automatically made them ineligible for a legal defense. Several men, including Anne's brother, were hung at Tyburn, then they were cut down and disemboweled. An expectedly successful death penalty verdict was won and Anne Boleyn soon gave a stirring speech before kneeling at the chopping block in the Tower Green.

ANNE BOLEYN'S SPEECH AT HER EXECUTION:

MAY 19, 1536, 8 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING
Good Christian people, I am come hither to die, for according to the law, and by the law I am judged to die, and therefore I will speak nothing against it. I am come hither to accuse no man, nor to speak anything of that, whereof I am accused and condemned to die, but I pray God save the king and send him long to reign over you, for a gentler nor a more merciful prince was there never: and to me he was ever a good, a gentle and sovereign lord. And if any person will meddle of my cause, I require them to judge the best. And thus I take my leave of the world and of you all, and I heartily desire you all to pray for me. O Lord have mercy on me, to God I commend my soul.
After being blindfolded and kneeling at the block, she repeated several times: To Jesus Christ I commend my soul; Lord Jesus receive my soul.
More than 2000 people heard her final address. As a concession to her former position, she was not beheaded by a clumsy axe. A skilled swordsman was brought over from France. She was assured that there would be little pain; she replied, with typical spirit, 'I have heard that the executioner is very good. And I have a little neck.'
Unfortunately, historical stories such as this, seem to influence some people's position on 21st century death penalty issues. Despite the fact that the way we deal with capitol punishment today is in great contrast to the injustice that was the norm in earlier centuries. We are so afraid that someone might be unjustly executed, that as a society we have become more and more reluctant to use it.
Take the time and stop to contemplate the benefits of having 'functioning' and healthy death penalty statutes? So many of us make our decisions based on emotion. Be sure you are not someone who has fallen into this trap. Viewed objectively, and with a broad vision and comprehension of the societal ramifications, it is impossible to rationally argue that the death penalty is not eminently required. It is also impossible to deny that there are a few among us that want you to be driven by emotions and make snap judgments regarding capitol punishment. They don't want you to remember the victim. They want you to forget about the wave of heartache and pain that emanated from this crime throughout the lives of those who loved the victim. You cannot, rationally, say that you would not want the death penalty for someone who raped and murdered your children or broke in and killed your spouse while you lay bleeding from your own wounds. If you must be driven by emotions, why is it that this doesn't trump feelings for the murderer?
Is the death penalty morally and legally just? I say yes, as long as the appeal process continues to work. Is the death penalty a deterrent to future crimes? I don't like this question because it requires that I accept the premise that it is the job of the death penalty to dissuade capitol criminals. It is 'NOT' ! It is the job of society to do so. The onus falls squarely on the backs of you and I. We are responsible for being observant and calling attention to criminal behavior and abuse. We have to take the responsibility of raising our children with a strong moral foundation, and draw attention to abusers and neglectful parenting. The American society has regressed in the direction of agnosticism and humanism. It is our turning away from God that causes an increase in capitol crimes, yet we are mass producing a generation that is far removed from the faith driven life displayed by our ancestors. So how do we curtail the use of the death penalty? Take moral, personal and civil responsibility. It's just that simple. Be sure to understand, it is not the job of criminal statutes to deter violent crime, it is ours.

The first American execution

The colony of Jamestown Virginia hung (a method borrowed from their homeland) Captain George Kendall in 1608. It was believed that Kendall was acting as a spy for Spain. Four years later the governor of Virginia expanded the death penalty to include chicken theivery, theft of produce (such as grapes) and negotiating with natives. Legislation regarding capitol punishment has been continuously presented and debated since the earliest days in America. I do not, however, believe that the death penalty is being used inappropriately today. Capitol murderers are the only ones who qualify in America today and even they are safe from it in many states unless there are extenuating circumstances.

Moral Justice?

Whether you believe the death penalty is meant as a deterrent, retaliation or reciprocity, you cannot deny that it is morally just. I deplore the idea of taking a human life, regardless of whether it's a murderer or a yet to be born child. Inherently, most humans feel this way. Where the Left goes wrong is when they allow their emotions to dictate their stance on the death penalty issue and most others. But what I can't wrap my brain around is how they can say that only certain lives are precious and murderers top the list. Although, the elderly, infirm and yet to be born children do not deserve equal rights. Now doesn't that sound backwards to you? How can you call yourself a Liberal and adhere to beliefs that run so counter to logic? I'll tell you how! The only way you can believe a woman who cuts up her children or drowns them in a bath tub, or a man who murders and cuts up his wife and unborn son does not deserve to be put to death is if you have disengaged your sense of morality. You can make excuses if you want, but if you support this morally corrupt view, you MUST admit, to yourself at least, that you are not basing such opinions on true morality. The definition of morality is : 1) Conformity to ideals of right human conduct. 2) The principles of right and wrong.

Speedy process

February 15th, seventy three years ago, a man named Giuseppe Zangara was dead set on killing the newly elected, soon to be inaugurated President FDR. He went to Miami, took aim at the President and his shot missed the mark. It did however, hit the Mayor of Chicago. Less than a month later Mayor Cernak died in a hospital as a result of the shooting. It took the state only 14 days to put Mr. Zangara in the electric chair and flip the switch.

Today we don't see this trend. We have just recently achieved the number of executions per year that we had in the 1870's. There have been so many moratoriums and filibusters on the death penalty in the last few years that a large part of the people on death row during this time had their cases delayed or effected by the dilatory actions of Congress or the courts. I understand that there is a need to debate this subject. It is a monumental issue and will likely be debated until Christ returns. During these moratoriums and other delays, Congress and the states have debated the fairness and the justification of Capitol punishment. Is it racist, is it Constitutional, and is it ethical are just a few of the topics of discussion. In the 1940s America put to death more criminals than ever before or since.

Sorry Dems; George 'Hitler' Bush is not to blame for execution rate

Do not let the death penalty opposition movement divert you with inaccuracies and false assumptions. It seems you always hear the mainstream media painting Bush as 'the Death machine'. If you took a pole, we would reveal that too many people in America think that George Bush is such a mad man, he must have put to death more people than any other President. When it is not the President or Governor who sentences them to death, it is the Judicial branch!

Besides, in actuality, in 1999 there were 98 executions, using this warped approach, it sets a fifty five year-old record for Clinton. In 1994 President Clinton signed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act which expanded the federal death penalty to include sixty offenses that qualify. Then again in ' 96 Clinton bolstered the death penalty with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This time he made it much more difficult for the accused to file for habeas corpus and evidentiary hearings. It was explained to be intended to help streamline death penalty cases so as to allow for quicker trials. Even evil conservatives like myself agree that it does increase the likelihood of innocent people being executed. I believe the changes were made in the wrong areas. Yes we do need to speed up the process so we are not housing these wastes of skin for twenty years, but not at the expense of the innocent.

As for this being a partisan thing or a Bush crony sacrament, wake up, FDR used the death penalty for more non-murder reasons than the 40th, 41st and 43rd presidents combined. Clinton fought hard to toughen and speed up capitol punishment. So if any of you on the left are thinking of attacking this from the 'Bush is evil' angle, don't, I don't want to hear it.

Remember, if we hate the death penalty, and we should hate to put someone to death, we should focus our passion on prevention through guidance and deterrence, not on opposition to the legislation. Capitol punishment is necessary to ensure justice, and it is necessary for society (you and I) to truly, diligently prevent the behavior.

Please express your opinions below data.

Number of persons executed in the United States, 1930-2005 Executions per Year















1930- 155
1931- 153
1932- 140
1933- 160
1934- 168
1935- 199
1936- 195
1937- 147
1938- 190
1939- 160
1940- 124
1941- 123
1942- 147
1943- 131
1944- 120
1945- 117
1946- 131
1947- 153
1948- 119
1949- 119
1950- 82
1951- 105
1952- 83
1953- 62
1954- 81
1955- 76
1956- 65
1957- 65
1958- 49
1959- 49
1960- 56
1961- 42
1962- 47
1963- 21
1964- 15
1965- 7
1966- 1
1967- 2
1968- 0
1969- 0
1970- 0
1971- 0
1972- 0
1973- 0
1974- 0
1975- 0
1976- 0
1977- 1
1978- 0
1979- 2
1980- 0
1981- 1
1982- 2
1983- 5
1984- 21
1985- 18
1986- 18
1987- 25
1988- 11
1989- 16
1990- 23
1991- 14
1992- 31
1993- 38
1994- 31
1995- 56
1996- 45
1997- 74
1998- 68
1999- 98
2000- 85
2001- 66
2002- 71
2003- 65
2004- 59
2005- 60
Death Row Based on Race

Source: Capital Punishment 2004, November 2005, NCJ 211349