In Spencer, Indiana, the prosecution of a terrible case is currently deciding whether or not to seek out the death penalty against the accused Kyle Parker. The twenty-two-year-old is currently on trial for the kidnapping, rape, and eventual murder of a young girl named Shaylyn Ammerman. Parker supposedly led authorities to the body of the young girl -- dying at only 1 year old. In Indiana, the abduction, rape, and murder of a minor under 12 years of age is definitely enough to receive the death penalty, however the family is still considering whether or not to proceed down that path. If one could put themselves in the position of the family, would you want to end the life of the man or brutally took the life of your 1 year old child or continue your life content that he is alive, rotting in jail. A controversial topic that will always provide strong believers from each opposing party is capital punishment. On one hand, some find it completely immoral, and may even describe it as barbaric or savage. While on the other hand, a majority of Americans support it, because it almost seems like the only punishment suitable for a person who commits such crimes. The truth is no matter how long we live as a nation, if we continue to follow the same ethics we have been taught as children ("treat others how you want to be treated" and a sort of toned-down "eye for an eye" when it comes to punishment), we will always find a majority of support in favor of capital punishment. Therefore, the death penalty continues to corral a majority of support because our ethics favor it, and we have been taught such ethics growing up from kids into young adults.

To begin, I would like to acknowledge the opposition's reasons for standing against capital punishment. After all, with the death penalty, one is being given the date of the end of their existence, which could only be described as unimaginable. A rabbi from California spoke out against capital punishment in his article for the San Francisco Examiner. He states that the immorality comes from the convict "often waiting 20 years or more until that lethal injection or shock is delivered" which is "surely cruel and inhumane." (Singer). There are two different problems that Jonathan Singer pointed out. First, the waiting list for the death penalty is too long and dreadful for any human being. Once the date is met, some would say that the execution methods are even cruel. Unfortunately, there is no way around that process of the court system, and there is no more painless way to take the life of somebody on death row. Another main component for the opposition of capital punishment resides in several religious institutions throughout America. A common theme in religious faith and practices includes love for thy neighbors and enemies. Therefore, it is no surprise that religious institutions have been pulling for the abolition of the death penalty since the foundation of the United States of America (Anthony Santoro). The common denouncing of the death penalty from religious institutions then draws up the question: if so many people throughout the country practice such religions, why is support for capital punishment still a majority?

The views of the religious institutions do not affect the majority of death penalty supporters because of ethics. In a study done for religious college students, a selected pool were asked for their stances on several different political controversies such as gun control, abortion, and capital punishment. For the most part within the study, the results were consistent. Those who practiced their religion seemed to align correctly with their religious views, with 17% of religious voters supporting the legalization of abortion. However, on issues such as capital punishment, the results were surprising. Only thirty-eight percent of religious students believe in the abolition of the death penalty, and twenty-three percent of nonreligious voters believe in the abolition of the death penalty (Students' Beliefs Vary By Gender And Politics). In both cases, support for the death penalty is the majority, regardless of religion. Evidently, religious students had fewer supporters in comparison to nonreligious voters, but there was still a majority of sixty-two percent that contradicted the faith in which their religions teach. The support for capital punishment is independent of religion. Many reasons can be applied to explain why only a minority denounces it, but weighing the pros and cons illuminates why religion has little affect on one's stance on the death penalty. For one, it is already the ultimate warning for criminals. Everybody knows the death penalty exists, and if it is so inhumane or cruel, why do murderers continue to commit acts of terror? If the extreme punishment was revoked, the rate of homicides may go up drastically because there is less to fear. Also, the justice system uses lethal injections, which is a peaceful way for one to lose their life. Therefore, there is no extreme cruelty in the execution, and, in fact, the murderer will even be getting a more peaceful death in comparison to their victim(s). However, the most important benefit of capital punishment lies in the ethics of fairness. If one steals a candy bar, the punishment will be much less severe in comparison to grand larceny. For states without the death penalty, "if severe -- but non-lethal -- violence towards another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment?" (Five Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty). People may be aware of their religion's condemnation of executions, but spiritual devotion is not the only factor that depicts what is right and wrong. Although many people use their religion as guides on how to live with morality, personal ethics is another guide that occasionally contradicts religion.

In a debate between Republican Senator Alan Keyes and Democratic Senator (at the time) Barack Obama, they expressed their beliefs on pro-life matters including capital punishment and abortion. First of all, both senators put abortion on a higher moral pedestal in comparison to the death penalty. In other words, both politicians agreed that capital punishment was necessary in particular situations, whereas the real moral disagreement fell on the morality of abortion. Therefore, the politicians, even the current liberal president of the United States, believe the ethics of capital punishment are validated. The reason for the difference between capital punishment and abortion, in terms of pro-life, is that the death penalty involves taking the life of a being that is completely guilty of a horrendous crime (Alan Keyes v. Barack Obama debate on Death Penalty). Beyond the arguments of vengeance and closure for the victim's families, people have faith in the use of capital punishment because of DNA testing. Although there can be flaws in the outcomes of DNA testing, it has become key evidence in many murder/rape cases. It also provides proof of the murderer's lack of innocence, furthermore making the decision to execute much easier. It does not take much to prove that eyewitness testimonies cannot be the most reliable source of information, and it has been proven in history that people have faked their confessions, but DNA testing "seems to have reassured the public that we're making the right calls" (Radley Balko). With all of this being said, capital punishment should not be put on the same level as abortion. Although both are extremely controversial subjects, capital punishment has more support because the life being taken has poorly affected society in a unforgiveable manner. Also, as well as DNA testing assuring the public of who committed such crimes, the cleanliness of executions also causes less and less people to stand against the death penalty. Americans have come a long way from public hangings, to guillotines, to firing squads, and then to the electric chair. All would seem completely immoral to people today and would be in clear violation of the eighth amendment. However, lethal injections brought a sense of peace to capital punishment. The "common perception" is "that most states have settled on lethal injection because it's the least painful form of execution, or at least the most humane" (Balko). It is the morality that lies within the death penalty. It is hard to find an exception to where taking a life is moral, except with capital punishment. A main argument will always be that it is immoral, but it is ethical to punish the murderer accordingly. Therefore, the death penalty is the proper punishment for such horrible criminals, but morality can still be saved through how the convict's life is taken -- peacefully and quietly.

The centerpiece of the support for capital punishment is the ethics we have always been taught. It is an ethical issue because of the harm that a murder causes to his victim, and the people that the victim had in their life. In fact, it is the people that knew the murder victim that will suffer a lifetime because of the crime committed. Even though the victim is gone, humans constantly make decisions as if a lost one was still alive. For example, Brett Favre playing in a football game after his father's death because that is what he would have wanted, or speaking on behalf of a dead family member by saying "that is what he/she would have wanted." The loss of a human life affects multiple people throughout their whole lives. It would be ethical to end the life of someone who caused that amount of suffering. However, the argument of ethics can be taken further. 

1. We have a general, prima facie duty to rescue victims from increasing harm.

2. Murder victims are increasingly harmed by the continuing life of their murderers.

3. Therefore, we have a prima facie duty to rescue murder victims by promptly ending the lives of their murderers.

As children, we had always been taught to help those who are in need, we were taught to treat others the way we wanted to be treated, and most importantly we learned to respect each other. The best way to end the suffering caused by a murder is to, at least, provide closure by ending the life of the man who committed the crime. Punishments were always expected to reflect the act committed. If one kid was to hurt another kid, they would be put in timeout, and kept away from the other children. The child who was hurt could feel better because they knew that the kid who hit them was being properly punished. If applied to more serious adult crimes, the same logic is used. When someone is murdered, their friends and families are affected continuously by the life of the person who killed their family/friend. Why would it be fair for the murderer to have their own life after they have taken somebody else's? Using the ethics we were taught as kids, it seems that the only ethical way to provide closure and proper punishment would be to take the life of the convict. Also, the logic can be applied to simple, petty robberies. If your phone was stolen, yet given back after a couple hours, the victim would not be as upset in comparison to if they got their phone back a week later. In terms of murder victims, "[e]ach minute, hour, and day murderers exist while their victims do not increases injustice between them" (Steve Aspenson). Therefore, based off of simple ethics that were prominent during one's childhood, the most fair punishment for murder would be capital punishment.

In conclusion, the majority of the population supporting capital punishment should not be a surprise. It has been occurring all throughout history, and there have always been advocates for its abolition. However, abolitionists will never be able to get rid of the death penalty because it is the only fair punishment for such heinous crimes. So what does this mean? If those who oppose the death penalty find it immoral, should they be teaching different ethics to their kids? The fact of the matter is that the ethics we follow are already flawless. The problem comes from the sick humans who recklessly murder their victim. If they do not intend to live with the morals, ethics, and respect that others live with, then the victims should not have to use the same morals when applying their punishment. 

