This argument that is being mooted in this aforementioned work, Legal Lynching: the Death Penalty and America’s Future as presented by Jackson, Jackson Jr. and Shapiro touches on sundry values which have always been perceived to glue a community or a nation together. Justice cannot be taken away from the community or a state as an assemblage of persons who are bound by the law (Jackson, 2001). A concept of moral rightness that is hinged on ethics, natural law, fairness, rationality, equity, religion and punishment and retribution for the breaching of these ethics, it is always naturally, logically perceived that a crime must be concomitant to the nature of the crime.
To pose therefore that death sentence should be abolished because it is tantamount to the abnegation of the convict’s rights is to delve on the levity of the matter. On the contrary, the gravity of the matter is that equity demands that the plaintiff is restored to the previous position, predating the effecting of the crime (Jackson, 2001). As a corollary to this, since life can not restored after murder has been committed, it is always assumed by some that the murderer must be taken to account and made liable to the crime, to an extent that the plaintiff will be accused.
The crux of the natter is that if the matter of justice is not satisfactorily looked into, the inchoate dereliction of capital punishment may leave the society crumbling as interpersonal lividness precipitates into approbation and reprobation, revenge and counter-revenge. A society in which the body politic takes the law in its hands is only anarchical and cannot stand.
Similarly, the failure to consider fairness and equity in the dispensation of justice in respect to capital punishment is bound to allow for too much permissiveness, if more serious are not meted out with the strictest form of punishment or penalty (Jackson, 2001). To this effect, it must be emphasized that a justice system must be seen to placate the discontentment of the plaintiff if it is to hold the state or any civilization together. It is the same justice system that must ensure that it is totally free of any racial coloring, so that its dispensation can be perceived by people of all color, religion, creed, ideology, class and age.
Deterrence theories that crime cannot be deterred in the absence of rewards can also not be withdrawn from the justice system and the need to come to a conclusive. It is a fact that cannot be repudiated that (most) men are not repulsed from crime by higher ideals such as love and self control, but rather, by fear (the fear of punishment) (Jackson, 2001). This is to the effect that setting laws that are too lenient on matters that are serious is tantamount to abetting of crime and the driving of a society down on a primrose.
The place of religion in capital punishment in the argument is so salient and important; Jackson, Jackson Jr. and Shapiro do not make a mistake of sidestepping it. Given that the US draws most of its judicial system and legal codes from Christian ideals since the American founding fathers believed in Christianity, it is granted that most of theological standpoints that are argued on are Christian(Jackson, 2001). The fact that Biblical scripture is littered with indictments against murder and the place of capital punishment reinforces the standpoint held by those who argue in favor of capital punishment. Therefore, anyone arguing on the need to abolish or maintain death sentencing must consider these principles deeply when arguing, using these constructs.