The Death Penalty

Human Rights"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " (. http://www.archives.gov...). As many know, this is a quotation from the Declaration of Independence, a document forged by the founding fathers of America declaring their independence from Britain. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " (. http://billofrightsinstitute.org...) This is the eight amendment in the American Bill of Rights. What I would like to focus on is the last part, "nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " These two quotes serve a purpose. They highlight the basis of what many (myself included) consider inherent, human rights. But what do these have to do with the death penalty? There are two parts I would like to focus on, the right to life, and the non imposition of cruel and unusual punishments. Many argue against the death penalty using these two points, that everybody, no matter what the deed, is entitled to life and entitled to not enduring cruel and unusual punishment. But why? Let me ask a question in the form of an example; should a person who kidnapped, raped, and murdered an innocent child (or children, for that matter) be entitled to the same human rights that the person deprived from the child? Many would argue that they are, on the basis that they are a person. But why should we give that person human rights? That person took those rights away from a child, and on what basis are they allowed their human rights? On no basis. You see, the moment they took away someone else's inherent rights, they forfeited their own. Thus, the only worthy punishment would be too take away their rights, their rights of life. "But what of cruel and unusual punishment? " When the person kidnapped, raped, and murdered the child, they inflicted "cruel and unusual punishment" on that child. If they are willing to inflict that on a child, why must we NOT inflict punishment on that person? You see, I'm proposing something (I believe) to be fairly new; a person forfeits their human rights when they deprive someone else of theirs. I would like you to think of it this way; there are two equal, poor people, both of whom who have the same amount of food. Person 1 takes all of person 2's food, and keeps it for himself. Now, if we were to give food (the amount both people started out in the beginning) to the group of people, it would only be fair we give the food to person 2, as they got their food taken by person 1. So, by depriving person 2 of their food, person 1 forfeits their right to get food. The same follows with the death penalty. When a person deprives someone else of their human rights, they forfeit theirs. 2. ) CostNow, the death penalty instituted in America costs a lot, more than it would cost to incarcerate that person (. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...). But this is because (from an American perspective), we use many different chemicals to inject into the person and kill them, for the sake of being humane. But, following from the conclusion in part 1 (a person who deprives someone else of their human rights forfeits theirs), a person forfeits their rights to a not be subject to a "cruel and unusual punishment". Now, if we are not to worry about "cruel and unusual" punishments, there are much more low, cost effective ways to execute a person. Although I won't go into much detail, a bullet costs much, much less than a life sentence. 3. ) ConclusionI hope I have been able to show why the death penalty should not be abolished, and why it is okay for the institution to still exist.