Without a clear standard set by our Supreme Court, the debate to allow or abolish the death penalty persists, almost monotonously. Contrasting itself from many other subjects of contention, however, the capital punishment question often succeeds in transcending party lines. Unfortunately, with no substantive partisanship or ideological outline to turn to, many Americans utilize rhetorical inconsistencies and argumentum ad populam in order to corroborate abolishing capital punishment. For legal and moral reasons, I stand adamantly in support of the death penalty as a just form of punishment, and I hope to, categorically, demonstrate why.

First, however, I find that a certain, quirky slogan requires response. “We kill people to show people that killing is wrong” has emerged as a contemporary treatise, intended to point out a deadly irony inherent in capital punishment. While deceptively simple, those who articulate this stance fall prey to the logical fallacy known as “equivocation,” the error of defining two technically separate words as one. In this case, the quote substitutes the verb “killing” for two words: “execute” and “murder,” respectively. “Execute” quantifies the punishment: a legally sanctioned and warranted sentence. “Murder” clarifies the crime, defined as “unjustifiably and maliciously taking the life of another.” Forcing the term “kill” to carry a negative connotation can easily incriminate a homeowner for clubbing a thief to death. Appropriately speaking, the quote should read, “We execute people to show people murder is wrong.” This version carries a radically different connotation.

In terms of legal issues, a plethora of death penalty opponents routinely point to Amendment 8 of the Constitution, and label capital punishment “cruel and unusual” to decry this “unconstitutional” practice. As a reaction, I present two points of rejoinder. First, I would issue an evidence check; only direct statistics proving the comparative anomaly and cruelty of death over, for example, life in prison without parole, can rationalize the “unconstitutional” claim. Thus far, I have not viewed any conclusive data to this end.

Second, I turn to the United States Supreme Court. To the initial chagrin of capital punishment proponents in 1972, Furman vs. Georgia established a de facto ban on the death penalty, as opposed to a de jure moratorium. In 1976, however, in what was supposed to be a seal of victory for opponents of the death penalty, the Supreme Court ruled in Gregg vs. Georgia that the death penalty, in and of itself, did not violate the Constitution. This, in effect, lifted the nationwide ban on the death penalty, while emphasizing a set of standards to limit the practice’s application.

Outside of immediately legal reasons, I support the death penalty on moral grounds. In my opinion, only capital punishment can bring full justice to those guilty of widespread, heinous crime, and present sufficient closure to those suffering from the tragedy. To be clear, I do not advocate the “eye-for-an-eye” approach, as some would contend. Indeed, I would support a clear set of boundaries for the death penalty’s applicability, such as in cases of mass homicide.

This blog post is an official entry for the Law Blogger’s Scholarship, sponsored by The Law Office of Joshua Pond, http://www.joshuapondlaw.com.