If it is agreed upon by all citizens of this nation that each member therein maintains the right to life, liberty, and property, it can so too be established that there is a present practice in need of inhibition. Such a practice is that of capital punishment. Capital punishment entails the revoking of life from one who has been accused and proven guilty of a crime, the degree of which has been decided to merit death as an equitable punishment within a court of law.
As this punishment has implications extending beyond an individual person, it is necessary to recognize it as a public issue. As society agrees each citizen has the right to life, and that no other citizen has the right to revoke the life of another person, except in cases of self-defense, it is evident that capital punishment is a violation of this principle; for in the implementation of this punishment, each citizen, as represented by the jury responsible for conviction, bears the corresponding responsibility for the infliction of such a punishment. As each citizen then is held partially responsible for taking life of another citizen, just as they had administered the lethal injection themselves, they are in violation of their own principle.
Furthermore, within our Constitution, it is held that citizens of this nation shall not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The inherent implication within this doctrine is that there will be no unreasonable or unfair aspects of the judicial process that can constitutionally result in the revoking of one’s life, liberty, or property. In arguing that this assumption may be upheld, it is evident that capital punishment cannot be constitutionally supported. Because of the irreversibility of this punishment, a fair or due process would be just as certain in determining the guilt as death itself operates with absolute certainty. However, this is rarely the case in terms of the death sentence. In according capital punishment, any bit of uncertainty cannot be abided while still holding that the process of law through which the criminal has participated is due or just.
Lastly, in accepting the principle that no citizen of this country should be subject to “cruel or unusual punishment” it is clear that capital punishment lacks constitutional support. In considering this clause, it is first important to establish the meaning of “cruel.” As this word implies something that causes the suffering or pain of an individual, it cannot be argued that capital punishment does neither of those things. That passing from death to life is not painful, that humans are capable of making it painless, that they will insure no suffering for the recipient of this punishment is a task that cannot, has not, been accomplished. Therefore, the death penalty constitutes a punishment that is, by definition, cruel.
In accepting the responsibility of the death penalty as citizens who assent to its implementation, that due process cannot be accorded with certainty equivalent to that of the punishment itself, that the punishment cannot be outside of the term “cruel,” it is evident that capital punishment is not upheld by our constitution and must be nullified forthwith.