Crime. The Right to Life and the Death Penalty

Crime, The Right to Life, and the Death Penalty

In one of my university courses, I am studying ‘Criminology’…the study of crime. It is an interesting subject and covers the random and organized thoughts of many ‘scholars’ and those who may think they are.

The point made most often is that laws are made by those in power and mainly benefit those in power. Of course, laws against murder, rape and theft benefit all persons. But those in power benefit the most, along with their friends and supporters (i.e.: money donors).

One section in the text book for the course, written by a guy named Larry J. Siegel (Criminology, 2009), prompted me to write this article. He mainly cites what others have said, theories they have propounded and critiques of those theories by others. However, he does, quite often, interject his own ideas and beliefs. Sometimes he does so in ways where it is a little difficult to tell if he is citing others or saying what he thinks is true.

One sentence brought me to this page. He stated that it is ironic that those who are prolife are also for the death penalty (Siegel, 2009). According to Webster, the dictionary guy, ironic is “curious, surprising.”

I would like to enlighten this author so he is no longer ‘surprised’ and doesn’t need to remain ‘curious’ about the subject of pro-lifers and the death penalty.

An unborn baby has committed no crimes. They have not stolen, have not raped, they have not murdered, have not conspired, have not terrorized, have not committed treason, have not even jay-walked. They do not deserve any punishment for any crime. They have a right to go on living. For someone to ‘take their life’ is murder.

The convicted criminal on death row is entirely different. He, or she, has committed at least one serious crime. Usually the crime is murder. Sometimes, it is multiple murders and all in the first degree…on purpose. Sometimes, they are on the row because of rape-murder, kidnapping and other crimes against a child. Such was the case of John Evander Couey.

By his actions regarding Jessica Lundsford, he deserved more than dying in a nice hospital. He, by his actions, forfeited his right to go on living. He was allowed to go on living after he was sentenced to death to insure all of his legal rights were satisfied. By dying of cancer, he stopped the State from carrying out the sentence he deserved…deserved a hundred, yea, a thousand, times over. He is dead and will never do to another child what he did to Jessica. But if he had not had cancer, he could have gone on living another twenty years while his case was appealed.

Those of us who place a high value on life and view abortion as murder, do not advocate the taking of life by the State under just any circumstances. We view life as sacred and look at people like Couey as having violated that God-given command. And since the State, “Caesar,” also has laws against rape, murder, kidnapping, etc., and we are told to ‘pay Caesar’s things to Caesar’, we have ample reason to support the death penalty in such cases. Criminals know the penalty they may face for crimes they commit before they commit them. If they have gotten away with like crimes before, and think they will again, they deserve the penalty even more. There was no question that Couey had forfeited his right to life.

The unborn have not forfeited anything by just being alive. The unborn have not forfeited their right to life just by their very existence. They deserve to go on living, to have the opportunity to be born and pursue happiness. And yet, by their very existence they incur judgment by the State if their ‘mother’ views them as less than deserving of the life they possess and the life they might find after birth.

The same woman who will decide that her child, as yet unborn, does not deserve to live, will support the ‘rights’ of murderers, rapists and others on death row to escape punishment. The murderer has forfeited his rights by committing crimes and, yet, those in favor of denying the rights of the unborn champion him, the murderer as a ‘victim’ of the State.

I know there is a greater chance of ten inches of snow falling on Couey’s grave if he was buried here in Florida than of the author of “Criminology,” Mr. Seigel reading these words. But I find it ironic that someone such as he would not get the facts from us before he critiques our beliefs. Then he would not have been surprised at our convictions.

Actually, I don’t really find it ‘ironic’ at all.