NO DEATH PENALTY, NO EASTER BUNNY (2003)

Arguments against the death penalty are usually based upon the erroneous theory that it is morally wrong to kill a human being, regardless of the crime committed. The basis of this theory is Judeo-Christian ideology, which is mistakenly interpreted by well-intentioned sillies, wholly ignorant of where good intentions necessarily lead. The truth is that the death penalty lies at the foundation of the Christian religion; and without such a policy, we would not only be without Christianity, but we would also be without Easter Bunnies.

In the beginning, during Biblical times, all was good. God took more of an interest in us in those days -- rewarding the pious and punishing the sinners on an almost daily basis. We really didn't need the death penalty, as God took care of it Himself, such as when he passed the sentence of death on both the citizens of Sodom and Gomorra and the first-born sons of Egypt. But God soon became quiet and passed His power to destroy life onto His creations, as expressed in Exodus 21:23-25: "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise" and somewhat redundantly in Leviticus 24:19-21: "If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 'Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death.'"

Those well-intentioned sillies may answer that God, when passing the Law onto Moses, expressly forbid the killing of people by virtue of the Fifth Commandment: "Thou shall not kill." But if you look closely at this statement, you'll see just how badly it's been misinterpreted. As you can see, God used the nearly-forgotten English word "thou" instead of "you." Whereas the word "you" properly refers to a collective, "thou" refers to a single person. What God was saying was that you as an individual cannot kill, but He does not forbid you as a collective, meaning society, from killing.

At the dawn of the Christian era, Mosaic Law was superseded by a better and hipper New Law. The sillies often use this law as furthering their argument against the death penalty. They are wont to site Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." But this rule clearly applies only to slapping; and of course, no one has ever been executed because of a slap.

The life and -- more importantly -- the death of Christ further substantiates the death penalty. After all, Christ received the death penalty. And if God was against it, He would've surely intervened against the execution of His only Son. By allowing the Romans to carry out the sentence, He tacitly approved it.

And what was the result of this act? Christianity. For without the death penalty, Christ would not have died on the Cross; and ipso facto, he could not have been resurrected -- which is, of course, the foundation of the religion. Just think of all the glorious wars and crusades fought in the name of Christ, all the heretics burned at the stake, and all the intolerance and hatred of other faiths. None of these things could have been possible without the death penalty.

Without the death penalty, there would also be no Easter; and with it, no Easter parades, no Easter bonnets, no painted Easter eggs, and most catastrophically, no Easter bunnies -- chocolate or otherwise. And let us not forget that millions of people around the world get Easter Monday off as holiday -- all because of the death penalty.

The death penalty also begot almost all the important saints, as without the death penalty, they couldn't have been martyred. Would anyone truly care about Paul's little epiphany on the road to Damascus -- would anyone read his long epistles -- if he hadn't had his head chopped off so spectacularly by Nero? Paul also made Stephan a saint when he passed the sentence of death on him. And of course, Saint Peter owes his eternal position guarding the Pearly Gates almost solely to his crucifixion.

As many of us are named either directly or indirectly after saints, without the death penalty many of us would almost certainly have different names. The music group of Peter, Paul, and Mary would've had a completely different name and may never have reached fame. There would also be no "George," and hence we would lose the name of two of our greatest presidents: George Washington and George W. Bush.

Without the death penalty, Joan of Arc could not have been dramatically burnt at the stake; and as a result, the world would be without a Shakespearean play, a naughty poem by Voltaire, and a major motion picture starring Milla Jovovich. And the French people would also be without one of their few heroes.

The death penalty has also made perpetual heroes of Socrates, Spartacus, William Wallace, Jan Hus, Walter Raleigh, Thomas More, Nathan Hale, Anastasia Romanova, and the Rosenbergs. The injustice of their executions only made them more heroic and more remembered, and made books and films based on their lives more profitable.

Many of our greatest inventions were created solely to serve the death penalty. The guillotine, the electric chair, the gas chamber -- great amounts of intellectual energy were expounded to kill miscreants quicker, cheaper, and more efficiently. Without the death penalty, the minds of these inventors may have lain barren -- or worse yet, they may have wasted their talents on the far less noble task of extending human life.

In addition to creating deities, saints, and heroes, the death penalty has also provided society with a host of benefits.

Firstly, the death penalty acts as a deterrent against crime. Many sillies will argue against this -- stating that statistics do not show any reduction in violent crime in states where the death penalty has been imposed, and in certain cases show an increase in violent crime. But common sense will tell you that if you kill someone, that person is certainly deterred from committing any further crimes.

But what if that person was innocent? Forgetting for a moment that -- due to Original Sin -- none of us are truly innocent, we must acknowledge that it is possible some people are executed for crimes for which they didn't commit. But as the Nazis so eloquently affirmed, it is far better to punish ninety-nine innocent people than to let one guilty one go free. Besides, just because a person didn't commit the crime for which he or she was executed, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't have committed a similar crime sometime in the future.

Secondly, the death penalty makes economic sense. There are approximately two million criminals in United States prisons. The average cost of maintaining a single prisoner is approximately $25,000, not including the cost of cable television. This means that the annual cost of incarceration is fifty million dollars. But killing prisoners cost next to nothing -- that is, outside of the endless appeal processes made by sillies, who have a callous disregard for the taxpayer costs involved.

As an additional economic benefit, executions bring in lots of tourist income to the cities that host them. Not dissimilar to those who attend major sporting events, people who come to joyfully witness capital punishment spend countless dollars at hotels and restaurants, and are also likely to buy some souvenirs to commemorate the occasion.

Finally, the death penalty is humane. Ask yourself, do we imprison stray dogs in pounds for life? No -- we put them to sleep, because doing otherwise would be inhumane. As criminals are certainly not much worse than dogs, they should be treated similarly. Additionally, impending mortality makes prisoners more likely to reflect on their sins and truly repent. We might be destroying their physical essence, but we are saving something far more valuable, their eternal souls. Eventually, they will be grateful.

The only problem with the death penalty is that it is rarely used. While federal law and many state laws allow for the murder of villains, bleeding-heart judges and juries only apply it in cases where there is sufficient media scrutiny. We must change this. I propose that the laws be changed so as to enforce the death penalty on any person convicted of a violent crime, without any opportunity for appeal. The law should apply retroactively to all those currently in our prison system.

The list of violent crimes punishable by death will include the old standards such as murder, rape, and armed robbery, but will also include treason, heresy, and protesting against just wars. Also included in the list of capital offenses will be the heinous act of abortion, as no one has the right to take another life.

The question soon arises, how shall we kill all these people en masse? The argument over which means of execution is the best and most efficient has been debated ad nauseum for ages, and no clear choice has been agreed upon. We could revive Zyklon B -- the gas the Nazis used so effectively -- but doing so may also set off some touchy emotions -- some may even have the audacity to call us nasty names. No, the best and the most dramatic means of execution has and will always be crucifixion.

No other form of execution provides the benefits of crucifixion. It's so violent and gruesome that it will surely deter crime, it's cheap -- especially if we make the crosses from laminate, and it creates a spectacle that will draw huge crowds both live and on television. As for being humane, well, "humane" is a relative term. I believe that if it were good enough for the Son of Man, it's humane enough. And finally, crucifixions will almost certainly create many heroes of tomorrow; and if we're lucky, it may even spawn a couple of deities, and with them some tasty chocolate candy.

For further dramatic effect, all crucifixions on television should take place on a hill, in groups of three, with the executioners dressed in Roman garb. We can even create reality shows based on crucifixions. For example, Who Wants to Crucify a Murderer? -- in which contestants vie for the opportunity to nail the first spike into the villain's flesh. We'll even provide a water basin for contestants to wash their hands afterward.

Crucifixions will also be a boon for the gambling industry, as casinos can provide odds on how long each prisoner will survive on the cross. To aid gamblers, television shows, magazines, and 1-900 numbers will provide detailed handicapping information.

Of course, we shouldn't forget the bottom line. By killing our prisoners, we will save almost enough money to buy one fighter jet, with which we could kill criminals in other countries. Alternatively, we could use the savings to provide wealthy Americans a tax cut -- so they can meet the ever-increasing cost of maintaining their yachts.

The death penalty is a win-win policy for everyone, criminals included; and when fully implemented, it will solve our social and economic problems and will provide many hours of wholesome, family-friendly television watching.