People who claim that sentencing a murderer to "life without the possibility of parole" protects society just as well as the death penalty ignore three things: (1) life without the possibility of parole does not mean life without the possibility of escape or (2) life without the possibility of killing while in prison or (3) life without the possibility of a liberal governor being elected and issuing a pardon.

The never-ending battle of the left to keep people from being held responsible for their acts is now in the U. S. Supreme Court.  The justices are being urged to exempt murderers from the death penalty if they score below some number on the IQ scale.  Psychology and psychiatry are not sciences, though some courts pretend they are.

Sometimes those who oppose capital punishment talk about "the sanctity of human life." The issue of capital punishment comes up only because the murderer has already violated the sanctity of human life. Are we to say that his life has more sanctity than the life or lives he has taken? Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001 Thomas Sowell

As Adam Smith said, two centuries ago, "Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent." Those who lost loved ones in the Oklahoma City bombing do not need to spend the rest of their lives having their deep emotional wounds rubbed raw, again and again, by seeing Timothy McVeigh and his lawyers spouting off in the media. McVeigh inflicted more than enough cruelty on them already and they need to begin to heal. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001 Thomas Sowell

Shabby logic often tries to equate the murderer's act of taking a life with the law's later taking of his life. But physical parallels are not moral parallels. Otherwise, after a bank robber seizes money at gunpoint, the police would be just as wrong to take the money back from him at gunpoint. A woman who used force to fight off a would-be rapist would be just as guilty as he was for using force against her. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001 Thomas Sowell

Nothing is more universal than the pain of having someone dear to you die, whether or not you witness it. Nor should anyone rejoice at inflicting such pain on someone else. But one of the fatal weaknesses of the political left is its unwillingness to weigh one thing against another. Criminals are not executed for the fun of it. They are executed to deter them from repeating their crime, among other reasons. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001 Thomas Sowell

It is dogma on the political left that capital punishment does not deter. But it is indisputable that execution deters the murderer who is executed. Nor is this any less significant because it is obvious. There are people who would be alive today if the convicted murderers who killed them had been executed for their previous murders. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001

Glib phrases about instead having "life in prison without the possibility of parole" are just talk. Murderers kill again in prison. They escape from prison and kill. They are furloughed and kill while on furlough. And there is no such thing as life in prison without the possibility of a liberal governor coming along to pardon them or commute their sentence. That too has happened. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001

The great fear of people on both sides of the capital punishment debate is making an irretrievable mistake by executing an innocent person. Even the best legal system cannot eliminate human error 100 percent. If there were an option that would prevent any innocent person from dying as a result of our legal system, that option should be taken. But there is no such option. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001

Letting murderers live has cost, and will continue to cost, the lives of innocent people. The only real question is whether more innocent lives will be lost this way than by executing the murderers, even with the rare mistake -- which we should make as rare as possible -- of executing an innocent person. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001

As so often in life, there is no real "solution" with a happy ending. There is only a trade-off. Those who cannot bring themselves to face trade-offs in general are of course unable to face this most painful of all trade-offs. But they have no right to consider their hand-wringing as higher morality. People are being murdered while they are wringing their hands. - McVeigh and the Death Penalty 18 July 2001

The general mindset of the political left is similar from country to country and even from century to century.

The softness toward dangerous criminals found in such 18th century writers as William Godwin and Condorcet has its echo today among those who hold protest vigils at the executions of murderers and who complain that we are not being nice enough to the cutthroats imprisoned at Guantanamo. - The Left and crime 23 August 2006

It should be eminently clear that a recurring decision by the political echelon to circumvent due legal process and to grant clemency to murderers and other convicted terrorists will necessarily produce a loss of public faith in the justice system, which is a pillar of any democratic society. [Time to institute the death penalty for terrorists Tuesday 18 October 2011]

A justice system that is courageous enough to prosecute the most powerful is praiseworthy. [Time to institute the death penalty for terrorists Tuesday 18 October 2011]

How can this situation be remedied? How can Israel forestall the loss of public confidence in the sentences that are meted out to terrorists upon the completion of due process? One obvious option is to introduce, in the most extreme cases, the use of the death penalty. Particularly heinous crimes can and perhaps ought to be punished by death, a punishment that cannot be reversed as a result of political pressure. The death penalty ensures that the worst of all criminals are fully and irrevocably punished by the state and that justice has been publicly served. [Time to institute the death penalty for terrorists Tuesday 18 October 2011]

Ultimately, the lengths to which the state and society are prepared to go to save each individual Israeli is something to take pride in. That said, this comes with a cost that is borne by individual Israelis who are the victims of pursuant attacks, and to democratic Israeli society as a whole. One way of mitigating this cumulative damage caused is to begin to instate the death penalty for the most heinous and extraordinary crimes. [Time to institute the death penalty for terrorists Tuesday 18 October 2011]

DNA and the end of innocence - DNA is the death penalty's best friend.

There are some crimes so incontestably heinous that they cast their perpetrators irretrievably beyond the pale of civilisation. The murder of a child and the deliberate mass killing of the innocent exemplify a moral class of acts for which contrition is irrelevant and repentance impossible. (Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue August 9, 2011)

It is my view that those who so profoundly succumb to barbarism do not warrant the privileges and protections of enlightened society, and that the commission of such abominations triggers the forfeiture of any right to continued life. (Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue August 9, 2011)

There is only one penalty severe and well deserved enough to match the obscenity that was his crime. Anders Breivik should pay for his actions with his life. (Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue August 9, 2011)

So if Breivik's guilt is beyond dispute and his sanity is not in serious question, we're returned to the moral question of retributive justice. Does a prison term - even for the entirety of life - constitute adequate punishment for such monstrous wickedness?

My own response to that question is a definitive no. And my negative resolve is strengthened by news of the palatial conditions that await Breivik behind bars. (Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue August 9, 2011)

But even if he were consigned to the most brutal of Third World prisons rather than a five-star Norwegian jail, the essential issue would still not be addressed. The question is not one of vengeance, but one of justice. And society should be entitled to make a moral declaration that some acts constitute such unadulterated evil that they warrant the ultimate penalty. (Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue August 9, 2011)

Capital punishment also provides finality to the families of those who have been murdered. It prevents them from being twice victimised - once by the original crime and a second time by the sight of their loved ones' murderer walking free. (Anders Breivik's monstrous crimes a life-and-death issue August 9, 2011)

The death penalty is indeed a decent thing. Answering the monstrosity of the evil among us is our duty as decent people, as justice demands removing those who slaughter the innocent. The indecency is the idea of a justice system without the death penalty, consequently forcing victims’ families to endure the corruption of society coddling the evil that destroyed their lives. [The Decency of the Death Penalty By: Tammy Bruce Tuesday, July 30, 2002 Posted: The Front Page Magazine]

Why do I appreciate the death penalty? It’s pretty simple, really. It gets the scum of the Earth off the face of the planet, making everyone infinitely safer. [The Decency of the Death Penalty By: Tammy Bruce Tuesday, July 30, 2002 Posted: The Front Page Magazine]

Life in prison for murderers, with or without parole is absurd, insulting, and dangerous. People who are murdered are dead. Forever. Their families are forever condemned to missing the person they loved. The victims of murderers have no hope, no future. The families remain, at heart, lost. That’s not the case though for the depraved Manson family, and every other murdering freak of nature who has yet to be executed. [The Decency of the Death Penalty By: Tammy Bruce Tuesday, July 30, 2002 Posted: The Front Page Magazine]

The animals living life in prison or on death row have the pleasure of experiencing emotions, breathing air, eating food, falling in love, having sex. All the things denied to their victims for eternity. Prison is indeed too good, while execution provides at least a dignified and moderately painless way out while making our planet a better place. Taking away prison privileges is also simply not enough. It is the joy of life, the pleasure of living, the most depraved do not deserve. [The Decency of the Death Penalty By: Tammy Bruce Tuesday, July 30, 2002 Posted: The Front Page Magazine]

It is appropriate to deny someone parole based “simply” on the seriousness of their crime. It is even more appropriate to execute the murderously depraved among us. [The Decency of the Death Penalty By: Tammy Bruce Tuesday, July 30, 2002 Posted: The Front Page Magazine]

Yet, death penalty opponents have never been known for letting the facts get in the way or for worrying about logic. They just continue to scream unfairness, whether it's unfounded cries of racism or unsupported claims that innocent people are being executed. And, they'll continue their false arguments as long as they are aided and abetted by members of the press who are either lazy or gullible (or both), or who possess an agenda.

Killers must pay for their crimes - Law enforcement in general approves of the death penalty as a deterrent to murder. In speaking to a high-level administrator in the Orlando Police Department, I received a clear message that Florida law enforcement wants murderers off the street and the death penalty should definitely be a permanent part of the justice system in our state.

Killers must pay for their crimes - The costs of life imprisonment compared to being on death row are sometimes indistinguishable, based on the lingering appeals of the terminal convicts. However, this is a good thing because appropriate DNA tests and other appeals can be used to make certain the prisoner is guilty of the murder.

Killers must pay for their crimes - There are more arguments for the death penalty, but I prefer, as a Christian, to focus on those that are Bible-based:

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed (Genesis 9:6). And in Romans 13:4, Paul is talking to the Christians in Rome about the authority of the Roman government: But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is Gods servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

We must pay the price for our crimes on Earth, but many death-row convicts have repented and been converted to Christianity before their executions.

Why Loughner deserves the death penalty By Jared Sichel | Section: Jan 21st, 2011 - Even if Loughner only murdered one person at the rally, either Arizona or the federal government would have a moral obligation to execute him. Not because the presence of the death penalty may serve as a deterrent or because society needs to make a statement about the gravity of what Loughner did. It is simply because murderers do not deserve to keep that which they stole and cannot return.

Why Loughner deserves the death penalty By Jared Sichel | Section: Jan 21st, 2011 - If a man steals your car, he must, at a minimum, return the car. If he has his own car and chooses to destroy yours for the fun of it, he must compensate you equally because he irreversibly destroyed your car. Giving up one’s own property works for replaceable property such as cars, but it does not work for human life. Murderers cannot return life to the dead like a thief can replace a car. Therefore, because murder is by its own nature irreversible and a life is inherently irreplaceable, for a murderer to keep his own life while permanently stealing someone else’s innocent one is an immense injustice.

Why Loughner deserves the death penalty By Jared Sichel | Section: Jan 21st, 2011 - The most valid reason for opposing the death penalty in general is that innocents may be executed. Let us buck reality and assume that executing innocents is a potentially widespread problem. In this case, that concern is not applicable. Newspapers, out of journalistic political correctness, may call Loughner the “alleged” killer, but everyone knows with total certainty that Loughner pulled the trigger in Tucson.

Why Loughner deserves the death penalty By Jared Sichel | Section: Jan 21st, 2011 - The frailest argument for opposing Loughner’s execution — and the death penalty in general — is that killing murderers is a hypocritical way to teach that killing innocents is wrong. This position must assert, then, that the value of the killer’s life is comparable to that of his victims.

Death Penalty must live on - Unfortunately, every so often a crime leaves a community so shocked and horrified that-despite its cost and controversy-the death penalty remains the only true measure of justice society can provide. Such is the case in the trial Steven Hayes, who was recently found guilty by a Connecticut court for the murders of Jennifer Hawke-Petit, and her two daughters Hayley, 17 and Michaela, 11.

Death Penalty must live on - For all the grief capital punishment causes us, cases like these are the reason why we still have a death penalty in the United States; for when we have to react to the shocking and unthinkable evil of men like Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky. Both Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky deserve to die for their crimes. Justice could not possibly be served with anything less.

Jewish World Review June 27, 2000 /24 Sivan, 5760 Attitude toward death penalty gets in the way of facts Executions, guilt, and the facts of the Graham case - PEOPLE WHO WORK in the news media are overwhelmingly opposed to the death penalty, so the nearer we get to any well-publicized execution, the more innocent the perpetrator is apt to look. This often makes it hard to get beyond the attitudes of the press to the actual facts of a capital case.

Those who reject capital punishment tend to be noisemakers who are not inflicted with the pain and agony of losing someone in an act of homicide. I suspect these opponents would change their views instantly if their loved ones were brutally murdered, but when it is about other victims -- whether it's 8-year-old Tori Stafford, or those of other previous horrific cases such as the serial killer and rapist, Paul Bernardo; the Shafia family who were convicted of murdering their own daughters and their step mother; or the convicted BC serial killer, Robert Pickton -- opponents of the death penalty unfailing start preaching about mercy and forgiveness because for them, the victim is someone else's family. [Bring Back the Death Penalty for Brutal Murderers Posted: 05/08/2012 9:30 am in The Huffington Post] 

Keeping brutal murderers behind bars, feeding and educating them with taxpayer's money is an insult to the victims and a mockery to the justice system. [Bring Back the Death Penalty for Brutal Murderers Posted: 05/08/2012 9:30 am in The Huffington Post]

Society must retain the death penalty in order to establish justice, especially for those innocent victims whose lives are so horrifically and unfairly taken. [Bring Back the Death Penalty for Brutal Murderers Posted: 05/08/2012 9:30 am in The Huffington Post]

A Conservative Case for Capital Punishment Steve Farrell Friday, March 18, 2005

Since the dawn of creation the law of God to man has been "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." Today we refer to this biblical principle in public law as capital punishment.

Interestingly, regardless of the fact that the death penalty's origin is found in the Bible, every society, religious or not, has adopted the death penalty as a suitable way to deal with murder. There is a good reason for this: The death penalty makes sense.

Think about it. As harsh a sentence as death is, the penalty fits the crime.

1. Murder is a crime for which the victim cannot come back and say, "I refuse to press charges." The victim has no voice.

2. Murder is a crime for which no payment by the criminal will ever fully satisfy the debt incurred. If one robs a store, the captured thief can pay back the debt and, in fact, under biblical law (which is better than today's law) would be tasked to work for the man he robbed until the debt was satisfied seven times the value of the goods stolen. With such a bounteous payback, the thief is then freed and, by his honorable labor, restored to a position of trust.

But a murderer can never bring back life. Thus, no matter how hard he labors, he can never regain society's trust. His victim is dead and will remain dead.

3. The legitimate role of government involves the protection of life, liberty and property. Just as the role of the government is to raise an armed force and rain down deadly force upon a bloodthirsty invading army, so also the government is duty bound to inflict death upon the man who chooses to slaughter fellow citizens in their own backyards.

Few, if any, object to the use of deadly force against an invading army. Yet those invading soldiers, ordered to fight and likely whipped up by propaganda to go into battle, are far less deserving of death than the assailant who has been proven guilty and convicted in a court of law, by a jury of his peers, of shedding the innocent blood of his neighbor – and this of his own free will.

Yet we do and must condone war in such situations. Governments must protect life. This is no less true regarding individual life.

4. Murder eventually revokes the full array of rights of citizenship. Some defend the murderer with the claim that he/she, like anyone else, has certain rights, including the right to life, which can never be taken away. This is true, prior to conviction. In this country we assume a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, the accused has the same rights in the legal system as anyone else: i.e., the right to know the crime for which one is being charged, the right to a speedy and public trial, the right to counsel, the right to face one's accusers, the right to trial before a jury of one's peers, the right against forced self-incrimination, the right not to be tried twice for the same capital crime (if declared innocent the first time around), and the right to appeal.

But after all this has taken place and the jury proclaims guilt and decrees a sentence and the convicted criminal has exhausted all appeals, his rights as an American citizen ought to end. He freely chose to take the life of a fellow citizen; he must not now be free to avoid the consequences of his heinous choice. If the jury assigns death, his fate ought to be sealed, his right to life terminated.

5. The death penalty is not, as social activist lawyer Clarence Darrow once claimed, "an act of revenge"; it is an act of justice.

Liberals and libertarians have made hay of a few people, once upon a time, driving by a penitentiary in Michigan City, Ind., shouting "Burn, baby, burn!" as a man who raped and strangled a mother and drowned each of her three children one by one was electrocuted.

As to the "burn, baby, burn," let's address a more important issue. Even if the account is true, why do we suppose some people react that way? Could it be that they are bearing testimony to the slayer and to would-be slayers that murder hurts?

Could it be that they are witnessing to the murderer and to those who take murder lightly that murder is a crime not just against an individual but also against all those who loved that individual, all those who depended upon that individual, all those who were and may yet have been influenced by that individual, and all those who fear that a similar act might someday befall them or their loved ones?

Certainly no sane human being pastes on his face a perpetual smile after a family member or fellow citizen has been brutally murdered, nor should he.

Consider the counsel of King Arthur to Sir Lancelot in the movie "First Knight": "A man who doesn't fear anything is a man who loves nothing." Or, with slight adaptation, "A man who has never felt anger has never known love." Or, as founder Thomas Paine reflected on the proper reaction to the deaths, tortures and rapes being inflicted by the British upon America's sons and daughters, brothers and wives, neighbors and countrymen: "He that feels not now is dead."

Love is a very good and strong emotion. When the object of that love is threatened or destroyed, people who possess moral and emotional sense ought to react with equally strong emotion, if not outrage. Nor can anyone fully understand such emotions until they have been there themselves.

And so we wonder, could it be that some activist lawyers and pundits – who don't believe in Judeo-Christian morality anyway – are guilty of intentionally confusing revenge with righteous indignation and true love? One can be angry; one can insist that stiff penalties including death be administered as remedies, without being filled with hatred and vengefulness.

Again from Thomas Paine, regarding America's call to arms against England: "Say not that this is revenge, call it rather the soft resentment of a suffering people, who, having no object in view but the good of all. ..."

Even so, in an imperfect world, a spirit of revenge will exist in the hearts of some victims. Their bitterness, however, does not change the nature of the crime, the proof of the murderer's guilt, nor the necessity for proportional justice. Murder is still murder, regardless of emotion and the imperfections of victims.