Is your morality carved in stone or does it depend on life experiences, secular and social orientation, or your religion?
Morality can be defined as a system of criteria that determine whether a specific act under conditions is moral (right) immoral (wrong) or neutral ( no moral implications). Moral codes are often derived by theologians who interrupt holy books like the bible, Qur’an, and the Torah. There conclusions are often accepted as absolute truth by believers. Unfortunately each of these books contain contradictions. Since a person’s interpretation of a holy book is heavily influenced by the interpreters culture, theologians often procure very different moral codes. An individual’s opinion on Capital Punishment is the personal moral decision of the individual.
What is the purpose of punishment? We take our lead from one major source, our parents—and they no doubt took their lead from their own parents. When your young child emulates what he just saw in a
Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not. When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a piece of furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he remembers never to do it again. So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.
Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder. Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important—and probably impossible—question to answer. Murder still happens very frequently. So some criminals disregard this warning for various reasons. But the fact does remain that many criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victim’s life. In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place.
It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act. By doing so, we’re essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others. True—as a whole, we are not murderers, and understandably refuse to be placed in the same category as someone like Ted
Bundy. But to many opponents of the death penalty, even Ted Bundy should have been given life without parole. The fact that he murdered at least thirty people for the mere reason that he enjoyed doing it—has no bearing on the hypocrisy, the flagrant dishonesty, of the declaration that such a person deserves to be killed because he had no right to kill. If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the

criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it? Lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to spare him execution. He “defended” himself in prison interviews by blaming pornography for causing his uncontrollable teenage libido, and for causing him to think of