However, regarding "morality" of the death penalty, there are plenty of moral reasons FOR it. The author of the above piece does not argue strongly against it from a moral standpoint. There is sufficient moral authority in the Bible to justify the death penalty. One scripture, Romans 13:3-4, says:
"The government has the right to carry out the death sentence. It is God's servant, an avenger to execute God's anger on anyone who does what is wrong."
In deciding how I feel about the death penalty, I try to understand when God feels it is okay to kill. I'll digress for a moment and draw comparisons to the current war situation. The Bible is full of support for killing wars if they are fought for good reasons. Structural authority for what's at hand in Iraq might be found in Acts 17:26-26, in Luke 12:48 and in a number of other places. Specifically, wars can be waged for among these reasons:
So with state killing, from a "moral" standpoint I am opposed to it because I don't think it is necessary to accomplish any of those things listed above, and for other moral reasons. Once a murderer is caught, it is I believe more justice to make them live out their entire natural lives in prison. Death is too easy for them, and justice served by a state agency seems too far removed from me, a surviving victim, to be of any real value.
I am not pontificating. I have lost family members to murder. My uncle was killed by a hitch-hiker in Fairfield, CA, and my cousin was murdered by someone bent on revenge for his turning them in for burglury at his home. Still I am opposed. Of course if I catch someone "in the act" I will not hesitate to unbody them with a certain brutality, I might after all be able to stop the crime; I would do the same in a righteous war for the reasons given in the scriptures above.
"Plus, it seems to me that is is more fiscally responsible to execute someone than it is to house and feed them for years."
The argument against this is, that the long appeals process is very expensive and housing them on death row is (at least it was at one point) more expensive than simply locking them up. I suppose we could cut short the appeals process and focus on DNA and modern forensic techniques. Doing this might draw the ire of civil libertarians, but who cares as long as we get to the truth. I don't really buy into the "it's expensive" argument against the death penalty.
"As long as "Life" means 15 to 20 years, society is not being protected from the predators..."
Life should mean until they die (naturally). Regrettably, in states where "natural life without parole" is not an option (as here in Texas) the death penalty should be an alternative. However I myself would lobby the legislature for the natural life without parole option.
Anyhow, just my .04 worth.