The death penalty is a necessary evil

Kyle Tangari, Editor-in-Chief of "The Wold"

A man walks into a movie theatre and opens fire on dozens of innocent civilians. Two brothers make homemade bombs, designed to kill slowly and painfully, and attack one of the largest marathons in the United States. Why are these people allowed to live?


The death penalty in the United States is highly debated, and the ethics behind it are struggling. However, what are the consequences for not having a death penalty? According to The Federal Register website, it costs $28,893 to incarcerate a federal prisoner for a year. Lets put this into perspective. It costs, on average, $10,615 to send a student through public school for a year, according to National Public Radio (NPR).


The man who killed dozens of people in a movie theatre, why is he allowed to live? Why spend $28,893 a year to keep him in a cell for the rest of his miserable life? Is it because people are under some assumption he will someday be a functioning member of society? Guess what, he won’t. He will spend the rest of his life in a prison cell, contributing nothing to society. He will serve multiple life sentences with no chance of parole. What a complete waste of tax dollars.


This is not to say all people should be put to death. Death is permanent. You can take a man out of prison, but you can’t give him back his life. The only time the death penalty should be used is when there can be absolute certainty. This means there is no question, by anyone, regarding guilt. For example, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the brothers responsible for the Boston Bombing attacks, is currently in court. The prosecution says he is guilty, his own defense says he guilty, he says he’s guilty, and we, literally, have a video to prove his guilt.


This man killed three people and injured at least 264 more. Why spend $28,893 a year just to keep him alive? Why keep him in jail for the rest of his life? Prison is a place to punish people and rehabilitate them into functioning members of society, thus there is no point in leaving someone in there for life if we don’t have to. He will never get the chance to be a rehabilitated society member, so execute him.


Unfortunately the numbers don’t matter because the cost of sending someone to death row is also enormous. The court costs, amount of time it takes, and keeping them on death row while the trial is conducted are all staggering. This is why a sort of death penalty reform is in order. First off, stop putting people on death row if there is any chance they may be innocent. Only put the known offenders on death row and don’t waste any time with it. It shouldn’t be a multi-year process.


The death penalty is not only a punishment or a deterrent for crime, it is a way to rid the worst of the worst from our society in the most humane way possible. Thinning the herd with natural selection.


Mankind has used execution as a means of punishment throughout all of history. If an ancient Roman were to kill a group of people at the market, he would be under the headsman’s axe immediately. If a 16th century Frenchman attacked and killed three young children, he would be sent to the guillotine at once. The only difference between then and now is how mankind evolved. Mistakes have been made, humanity has learned from them. Humanity now knows how to make sure an innocent person is not sent to death.


The ability to end one’s life is a hallowing power. No one innocent man or woman should ever have to fear death for a crime they did not commit. There are numerous cases wherein a person serves time in prison, but after new evidence is revealed are proved innocent. This can never happen with a death row inmate. There can be no seconds guesses, no questionable witnesses, no misfit gloves. An evil person should only be executed if it can be proved he is evil.