THE DEATH PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE ABOLISHED

Capital punishment is an extreme sanction that is properly reserved for the worst of the worst:
serial killers like Ted Bundy and terrorists like Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, or
Mumbai Attack terrorist Ajmal Kasab.

Over the past decade, the murder rate has dropped dramatically.

Several recent academic studies show a clear deterrent effect from judicious use of the death
penalty: For each actual execution, about 17 murders are prevented, the studies show.

Opponents claim that there are innocent people on death row.

While that may be true, the number of innocent people who have been executed is zero. The
reason is that in every state that allows capital punishment, murderers found guilty get a series of
appeals that result in an average 12-year delay between sentence and execution.

Beyond that, DNA testing can now establish with virtual certainty in many cases whether
someone is, in fact, the killer.

On the other hand, we can count in the hundreds the innocent victims who died because we
allowed convicted murderers to get out of prison.

Some claim life without parole is an appropriate alternative to the death penalty. But a key
reason many killers agree to accept sentences of life without parole in plea deals is the specter
of a death sentence.

If we can establish that a killer is absolutely guilty and has a track record that suggests he will
seriously hurt or kill again, what do we say to his future victims if we allow him to live? The
answer is that we need capital punishment for those rare cases in which the killer is beyond
redemption.

THE DEATH PENALTY PREVENTS FUTURE MURDERS

Society has always used punishment to discourage would-be criminals from unlawful action.
Since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest
punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty.
If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before
killing for fear of losing their own life. Moreover, even if some studies regarding deterrence are
inconclusive, that is only because the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before an
execution is actually carried out.

Punishments which are swift and sure are the best deterrent.

The fact that some states or countries which do not use the death penalty have lower murder
rates than jurisdictions which do is NOT evidence of the failure of deterrence. We should
consider the fact that, countries with high murder rates would have even higher rates if they did
not use the death penalty.

Ernest van den Haag, a Professor of Jurisprudence at Fordham University who has studied the
question of deterrence closely, wrote: "Even though statistical demonstrations are not conclusive,
and perhaps cannot be, capital punishment is likely to deter more than other punishments
because people fear death more than anything else. They fear most death deliberately inflicted
by law and scheduled by the courts. Whatever people fear most is likely to deter most. Hence,
the threat of the death penalty may deter some murderers who otherwise might not have been
deterred".

And surely the death penalty is the only penalty that could deter prisoners already serving a life
sentence and tempted to kill a guard, or offenders about to be arrested and facing a life
sentence. Perhaps they will not be deterred. But they would certainly not be deterred by anything
else.

We owe all the protection we can give to law enforcers exposed to special risks, and to the
society of tax-payers we live in.

Finally, the death penalty certainly "deters" the murderer who is executed, because, this
murderer no longer lives to commit another murder after recieving the death sentence.

Strictly speaking, this is a form of incapacitation, similar to the way a robber put in prison is
prevented from robbing on the streets.

Vicious murderers must be killed to prevent them from murdering again.

There are many things in this society which should be banned, but the death penalty is not one of
them. It is definitely the right way to go as far as capital discipline is concerned. Right now in
America, it is certainly outrageous that criminals think that they can get away with just about
anything. In some states, including Alabama, the death penalty has helped them lower the rate of
violent crimes.
We do need some form of capital punishment to send a message to career criminals that they
will not get away with these severe crimes.

The death penalty would also make people more secure. In some countries of South America
and the Far East, they have very severe penalties, including flogging, for even minor crimes.
People in some areas of the world feel they cannot walk around or step outside their houses for
fear of criminals. In some other countries, however, you would rarely see laws being broken
because the penalties are so stern.

The United States is one of the most lenient countries in the world as far as discipline is
concerned. If they had the death penalty, all people would be able to use the streets even in
troubled areas.

Another reason we should use this penalty, is to set an example to all criminals. Some criminals
who have committed many violent crimes (robbery, rape, and murder) are walking the streets like
normal citizens because we are much too lenient on them. If the death penalty is instituted, there
would not be as many daring and violent crimes as there are presently.

OUR PRESENT LAWS ARE MUCH TOO "SOFT" ON CRIMINALS.

WE NEED TO GET STRICTER.

In concluding, I would like to add that this law would make a major difference. It would make our
streets safer, people more secure, and make a better world to live in.

THE DEATH PENALTY IS A DEFINITE PLUS FOR OUR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE.