While I am aware that I am beginning on a footing reminiscent to a monologue it is also true that there has to be one before there can be two. Upon this note I begin this musing upon the death penalty.

The death penalty has been around for as long as anybody can remember and then some. From the prolific hang-man's noose to the more modern use of a lethal concoction of chemicals to the abrupt firing squad to the more primitive means of stoning, such by no means constitutes a full list of the products of humanity's creativity in regards to the infliction of suffering and an early end upon his fellow human.

Yet regardless of the finality and the tragedy involved in the ending of a human life, it is often a concept widely supported from certain quarters, particularly within the contexts of justice and honour and prevention (such as the isolation and disposal of an individual with a rare disease).

For the moment I shall focus upon the context of justice as it is by far the most compelling defence that the death penalty has.

The justification from the perspective of law has two prongs to consider:

1.) The individual is a criminal who needs to pay for their actions through their own life

2.) The individual is a criminal who has proven dangerous once and may be so again if allowed to live

-----

The former argument is typically used when an individual is accused of murder or a highly serious crime of similar proportions. Within this argument one also finds an attempt to justify the taking of a life as compensation for a life already taken.

The later argument purports that an individual who has resorted to fatal violence once may do so again and thus must be prevented through the most final way possible - the ending of his or her own life.

-----

The flaws to be found within the arguments concerned involve both the attempt of the former to quantify life and the later's attempt to portray the death penalty as the only assurance against a repetition.

Firstly one notes that the 'eye for an eye' approach as manifested through the death penalty only makes quantitative sense in the event of there being only a single victim. One can hardly kill a serial killer multiple times.

Secondly the later argument fails to take into account the fact that an individual who poses a threat to society ceases from being a threat to society the moment that they are taken into custody. Therefore for as long as an individual remains within custody the second argument is rendered void.

-----

Yes, one may point out that the relatives or the victim him or herself may have a personal interest to see that "justice is done". The only problem is that, much like a victim makes a poor judge for reasons of natural bias so too are the interests of the aggrieved party to be considered as unreliable as a basis for assessing what is to be considered as justice. Furthermore it is often forgotten that the accused individual often has relatives who care if the person lives or dies.

-----

Drawing towards the end, I would like to raise the point that the justice system is a construct enforced by and upon society, much as one may perceive in the song 'Bohemian Rhapsody' by Queen. The commitment of a grave error on the part of the individual is portrayed as the point of downfall, the end, the life of a dead (wo)man walking.

It is only so because we make it so. The truth of the matter is that even a murderer is capable of contributing to society after the act, and most likely is even capable of integrating with the rest of society without a further error of comparable gravity. Yet such becomes an issue of trust and humans are not inherently trusting by nature. Hence they are driven by fear and use social omission as a means of propping up their insecurity.

-----

Finally, and on this point I close, the implimentation of the death penalty involves the ending of an individual's life. Murder is defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of a person. Yet are the scales of ethics and law attuned to each other? They are rarely so.

Hence... if one's legislation of what would otherwise be termed as murder and if the scales of law and ethics are often seperate... then is it not hence logical that the death penalty is also not necessarily ethical?