I didn't want to get involved in a repeat of an age old argument, covered here elsewhere, but a new thought on the matter occurred to me as I was driving home.

It's curious how people can accept that the government has the right to punish by imprisonment, punish by forced community service or other labor, punish by fine, punish by confiscation of property, etc, but not punish by death. The argument used is that nobody has the right to take a life, so how can we kill murderers?

True, individual citizens, or even mobs of them, do not have the right to kill. Nor do they have the right to imprison -- that's called kidnapping, and it's a crime -- or force labor -- that would be a multitude of offenses -- or fine -- that's called stealing -- or confiscate property -- that's also called stealing. Society, however, with the body called "government" which it appoints for this purpose, absolutely has the right to exact punishments upon criminals that individual citizens do not. "Capital punishment is wrong, because people don't have the right to kill" is a logically flawed argument unless you also assert that government doesn't have the right to imprison, fine, or indeed punish at all. At that point the argument is no longer flawed, just stupid.

By killing another, a murderer gives up his right to live in society and, for that matter, his right to live at all. In fact society *must* take action to remove such a person from society, or it commits the crime of negligence against everybody else in it. As far as I'm concerned, society should remove such a person from society in the manner most convenient to it. The murderer, having given up all rights to society, a chance of rehabilitation, and indeed to life itself, is not a consideration. Life imprisonment or execution -- whichever is the most convenient way for him to be disposed of is the way to go. What's cheapest? What risk is there to the lives of prison guards in the case of life imprisonment? Which way permits the convict the least opportunity to generate news and provide himself a platform through the media for his voice, which has lost all rights to be heard?

The only argument I've ever heard against the death penalty that holds any water with me is the risk of killing an innocent, because that can't be undone if innocence is proven after the fact. Then again, after 50 years of a life imprisonment sentence, there's not a lot that can be undone there, either. My feeling is that you should be REALLY sure before a conviction is made in the first place, then go through with what is decided as the proper sentence, and leave these ridiculous concerns about the rights of killers (hint: they have none) in the dust, where they belong.