No

1. The death penalty gives closure to the victim's families who have suffered so much. Some family members of crime victims may take years or decades to recover from the shock and loss of a loved one. Some may never recover. One of the things that helps hasten this recovery is to achieve some kind of closure. Life in prison just means the criminal is still around to haunt the victim. A death sentence brings finality to a horrible chapter in the lives of these family members. 2. It creates another form of crime deterrent. Crime would run rampant as never before if there wasn't some way to deter people from committing the acts. Prison time is an effective deterrent, but with some people, more is needed. Prosecutors should have the option of using a variety of punishments in order to minimize crime. 3. Justice is better served. The most fundamental principle of justice is that the punishment should fit the crime. When someone plans and brutally murders another person, doesn't it make sense that the punishment for the perpetrator also be death? 4. Our justice system shows more sympathy for criminals than it does victims. It's time we put the emphasis of our criminal justice system back on protecting the victim rather than the accused. Remember, a person who's on death row has almost always committed crimes before this. A long line of victims have been waiting for justice. We need justice for current and past victims. 5. It provides a deterrent for prisoners already serving a life sentence. What about people already sentenced to life in prison. What's to stop them from murdering people constantly while in prison? What are they going to do-extend his sentence? Sure, they can take away some prison privileges, but is this enough of a deterrent to stop the killing? What about a person sentenced to life who happens to escape? What's to stop him from killing anyone who might try to bring him in or curb his crime spree? 6. DNA testing and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence. One of the biggest arguments against the death penalty is the possibility of error. Sure, we can never completely eliminate all uncertainty, but nowadays, it's about as close as you can get. DNA testing is over 99 percent effective. And even if DNA testing and other such scientific methods didn't exist, the trial and appeals process is so thorough it's next to impossible to convict an innocent person. Remember, a jury of 12 members must unanimously decide there's not even a reasonable doubt the person is guilty. The number of innocent people that might somehow be convicted is no greater than the number of innocent victims of the murderers who are set free.

7. Prisoner parole or escapes can give criminals another chance to kill. Perhaps the biggest reason to keep the death penalty is to prevent the crime from happening again. The parole system nowadays is a joke. Does it make sense to anyone outside the legal system to have multiple "life" sentences + 20 years or other jiverish? Even if a criminal is sentenced to life without possibility of parole, he still has a chance to kill while in prison, or even worse, escape and go on a crime/murder spree. 8. It contributes to the problem of overpopulation in the prison system. Prisons across the country face the problem of too many prisoners and not enough space & resources. Each additional prisoner requires a portion of a cell, food, clothing, extra guard time, and so on. When you eliminate the death penalty as an option, it means that prisoner must be housed for life. Thus, it only adds to the problem of an overcrowded prison system. 9. It gives prosecutors another bargaining chip in the plea bargain process, which is essential in cutting costs in an overcrowded court system. The number of criminal cases that are plea bargained (meaning the accused admits guilt in return for a lesser sentence or some other concession) can be as high as 80 or 90 percent of cases. With the time, cost, and personnel requirements of a criminal case, there really isn't much of a choice. The vast majority of people that are arraigned are in fact guilty of the crime they are accused. Even if you believe a defendant only deserves life in prison, without the threat of a death sentence, there may be no way to get him to plead guilty and accept the sentence. If a case goes to trial, in addition to the enormous cost, you run the chance that you may lose the case, meaning a violent criminal gets off scot free. The existence of the death penalty gives prosecutors much more flexibility and power to ensure just punishments.

Capital punishment is the death penalty given by the government of a country, to people who have committed hideous crimes like homicide, rape, etc. Capital punishment has been a way of punishing people since ages. Although there are some countries that have abolished death penalty from their law, there are still many which still practice the act of killing a person for crime. Capital punishment is prevalent in the US, Asian and Middle Eastern countries. Some of the ways of executing criminals are hanging, shooting, electrocution and giving lethal injections. People have different opinions on the issue of capital punishment given to a convict. While some think that death penalty is necessary for those who have committed a terrible crime, there are others who consider it as an immoral act that goes against the values of humanity. Pros of Capital Punishment y A person who has committed a crime like killing or raping another person should be given death penalty, which is as severe punishment as the act. It is said that when a criminal is given a capital punishment, it dissuades others in the society from committing such serious crimes.

They would refrain from such crimes due to fear of losing their lives. This would definitely help in reducing crime rate in society. If a criminal is jailed, he may again commit the same crime after being released from prison. Giving him capital punishment would make sure that the society is safe from being attacked by criminals. It seems to be an appropriate punishment for serial killers and for those who continue to commit crimes even after serving imprisonment. Some believe that instead of announcing life imprisonment for the convicts, where they would have to live a futile life behind closed bars, it is better to kill them. It is said that imprisoning someone is more expensive than executing him. Rather than spending on a person who may again commit terrifying crime, it is better to put him to death. Capital punishment is equated as revenge for pain and suffering that the criminal inflicted on the victim. Some people strongly believe that a person who has taken the life of another person does not have a right to live. Sentencing such a criminal can give relief to the family members of the victim that their loved one has obtained justice. It is also important for the safety of fellow prison inmates and guards, as people who commit horrifying crimes like murder are believed to have a violent personality and may, in future, attack someone during imprisonment. These reasons emphasize the importance of capital punishment for the betterment of human society. However, there is another section of people who believe that it is an immoral and unethical act of violence.

Cons of Capital Punishment y If we execute a person, what is the difference between us and the criminal who has committed the horrifying crime of killing another individual. y Capital punishment is not always just and appropriate. Usually, it has been seen that poor people have to succumb to death penalty as they cannot afford good lawyers to defend their stance. There are very rare cases of rich people being pronounced capital punishment. Also, an individual from minority communities are more likely to be given death penalty. y Every human being is entitled to receive a second chance in life. Putting a convict behind bars is always a logical option than killing him, as there is a chance that he may improve. People who have served life sentences are reported to have bettered their earlier ways of living and have made worthwhile contribution to the society. y There is also a chance that an individual is innocent and is wrongly charged for a crime he has never committed. There have been cases where individuals were released after being given death sentence, because they were proved innocent. There are also cases where a person's innocence was proved after he was put to death. Hence, it is best to avoid executing a person. y It is reported that there is no relation between capital punishment and crime rate i.e giving death penalty does not decrease crime rate in the society. Crimes are prevalent in countries where capital punishment exists and also where it has been abolished. The question whether capital punishment is a moral or an immoral act in a cultured society, does not have a definite answer. Whether to give capital punishment to a criminal or not, may depend on his previous criminal records and the seriousness of the crime he has committed. But, do we really have the right to take the life of our fellow human beings?

J. Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the following questions: Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice ? A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated. When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY (PROS)

Threat of Death Penalty Rate of Homicide Decreases Frank Carrington (1978) states- is there any way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murders from killing? There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murderers from killing. The argument goes on that proponents of capital punishments should not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a reasonable doubt. Nor should the abolitionist have to prove deterrence by a reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to anyway. Frank Carrington (1978) claims common sense supports the inference that if, the threat of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may be true. But if the threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease. Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia: Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view. We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent. There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act ( as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87).

J. Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the following questions: Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)? A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated. When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal (Isenberg, I., 1977). The former Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana delivered a speech to Law enforcement officials in Northern Indiana on May 12, 1971 (as cited in Isenberg, 1977): Our system of criminal law is to minimize human suffering by works or order primarily to forestall violence or aggression. In the question of the death penalty, we must ask ourselves which action will serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law. We should weigh the death of the convicted murders against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility of potential victims to murder (p. 129) In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is all forgotten. Crime Rate Increases Millions are being killed and will be killed because our justice system is not working. Millions have already been killed and will be killed every year. According to Time Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United States. Some are knifed, shot, or assaulted (Internet). Crime growth has been going up in the past because of too much leniency going hand in hand with the increased rate of people being victimized. There are many loop holes devised for offenders, and because of that crime rate has increased drastically. Between l960 to 1968 crime rate increased 11 times. More and more people are being murdered, raped, assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed, etc. (Isenberg, I., 1997). Free Will

When you commit a felony, it is a matter of free will. No one is compelled to commit armed robbery, murder, or rape. The average citizen does not have a mind or intentions to become a killer or being falsely accused of murder. What he is worried about is being a victim. Deterrent in 27 States Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death penalty. According to Baily, who did a study from l967 to l968, the death penalty was a deterrent in 27 states. When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United States, the study showed murder rates increased by 100%. The study also reviewed 14 nations who abolished the death penalty. It (the study) claimed murder increased by 7% from five years before the abolition period to the five years after the abolition (Internet). Studies were made by Professor Isaac Erlich between the period of 1933 and 1969. He concluded An additional execution per year may have resulted in fewer murders (Bedau, 1982, p. 323). The number of years on the average spent in death row is 10 years. It is known, with all the appeals, the death penalty is not swift! In fact, most murderers feel they most likely will never be put to death. If the death penalty was swift and inevitable, there certainly would be a decrease in homicide rates. (Internet). Death Feared Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we dont think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982). In a foot note Bedau (1982) cites, Actually being dead is no different from not being born, a (non) experience we all had before being born. But death is not realized. The process of dying which is a different matter is usually confused with it. In turn, dying is feared because death is expected, even though death is feared because it is confused with dying (p. 338). Death is an experience that cannot be experienced and ends all experience. Because it is unknown as it is certain, death is universally feared. The life of a man should be sacred to each other (Bedau, H., 1982, p. 330). Innocent Executed - no Proof Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22

cases where the defendant have been wrongly executed. However, this study is very controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in l2 cases. There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of innocence. Moreover, our judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are protected. Most likely an innocent person would not be executed (Internet). Death Penalty Saves Lives The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong enough to abolish the death penalty. Remember, the death penalty saves lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. You must consider the victim as well as the defendant. Hugo Bedau (1982) claims: The execution of the innocent believed guilty is a miscarriage of justice that must be opposed whenever detected. But such miscarriage of justice do not warrant abolition at the death penalty. Unless the moral drawbacks of an activity practice, which include the possible death of innocent lives that might be saved by it, the activity is warranted. Most human activities like medicine, manufacturing, automobile, and air traffic, sports, not to mention wars and revolutions, cause death of innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, advantages outweigh the disadvantages, human activities including the penal system with all its punishments are morally justified ( p. 323).

Wesley Lowe states, As for the penal system, accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in exchange for safety. He says we risk dying in an accident when we drive a car, and it is acceptable. Therefore, risking that someone might be wrongfully executed is worth saving thousands of innocent people who may be the next victim of murder (Internet). Death Penalty - Right to Live Opponents say the State is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if execution is murder, than killing someone in war is murder. Our country should stop fighting wars. On the contrary, is it necessary to protect the rights of a group of people. Hence, the death penalty is vital to protect a persons right to live! Is arresting someone same as kidnapping someone? In the same, executing someone is not murder, it is punishment by society for a deserving criminal. Bible Quotes

Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is that it gratifies the desire for revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the Lord declaring Vengeance is mine (Romans 12:19). He thus legitimized vengeance and reserved it to Himself. However, the Bible also enjoins, The murderer shall surely be put to death (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted whatever the motive. Religious tradition certainly suggest no less (p. 330). All religions believe having life is sacred. If we deprive someone else life, he only suffers minor inconvenience; hence, we cheapen human lifethis is where we are at today. Death Penalty Deterrent Effect If we do not know whether the death penalty will deter others, we will be confronted with two uncertainties . If we have the death penalty and achieve no deterrent effect, than, the life of convicted murderers has been expended in vain (from a deterrent point of view)here is a net loss. If we have the death sentence, and deter future murderers, we spared the lives of future victims-(the prospective murderers gain, too; they are spared punishment because they were deterred). In this case, the death penalty is a gain, unless the convicted murderer is valued more highly than that of the unknown victim, or victims (Carrington, F., l978). Capital Punishment is not excessive, unnecessary punishment, for those who knowingly and intentionally commits murder in premeditation, to take lives of others. Even though capital punishment is not used so often, it still is a threat to the criminal. Justice Justice requires punishing the guilty even if only some can be punished and sparing the innocent, even if all are not spared. Morally, justice must always be preferred to equality. Justice cannot ever permit sparing some guilty person, or punishing some innocent ones, for the sake of equalitybecause others have been spared or punished. In practice, penalties could never be applied if we insisted that they can be inflicted on only a guilty person unless we are able to make sure that they are equally applied to all other guilty persons. Anyone familiar with the law enforcement knows that punishments can be inflicted only on an unavoidable shudder selection of the guilty (Bedau, H., 1977). Irwin Isenberg (1977) said, when you kill a man with premeditation, you do something different than stealing from him. I favor the death penalty as a matter of justice and human dignity even apart from deterrence. The penalty must be appropriate to the seriousness of the crime (p. 135). Life is Sacred In an interview with Professor van den Haag, a psychoanalyst and adjunct professor at New York University, was questioned, Why do you favor the death penalty? His answer was that the Federal prison had a man sentenced to Life who, since he has been in prison

committed three more murders on three separate occasions .They were prison guards and inmates. Theres no more punishment he can receive, therefore, in many cases, the death penalty is the only penalty that can deter. He went on saying I hold life sacred, and because I hold it sacred, I feel that anyone who takes some ones life should know that thereby he forsakes his own and does not just suffer an inconvenience about being put into prison for sometime (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 135) An Eye for an Eye Some people argue that the capital punishment tends to brutalize and disregards society. Do you agree? Some people say the that penalty is legalized murder because it is like an eye for an eye. The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not! People are more brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts. Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for life? Life in prison means in six months the parole board can release the man to 12 years in some states. But even if it were real life imprisonment, its deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death penalty. The death penalty is the only actually irrevocable penalty. Because of that, it is the one that people fear the most (Isenberg, I., 1977). The framers of the constitution clearly believed that Capital punishment was an acceptable mess of protecting society form wicked dissolute men Thomas Jefferson liked to talk about it (Carrington, F., 1978).

CONCLUSION
My research on issues on the death penalty is one of the most debatable in the criminal justice system. Today, there are many pros and cons to this death penalty issues. However, if people weigh the arguments properly, and have empathy for the victims, they will be more inclined to favor capital punishment. As a matter of fact, most people in the U.S. today are in favor of it. But we need more states to enforce the death penalty. As you may have read in the arguments, the death penalty help to curtail future murderers, thus, we can save more lives. The chances of murdering an innocent man is very minute. My Opinion In my opinion, I am in favor of the death penalty, because we can save innocent lives. Life to me is scared as Professor Haag stated. My innocent nephew, Sean Burgado, who was brutally murdered by a shot gun to the chest, did not have a choice to make a last statement or make a will before he died. The people on death row can watch T.V. and enjoy their lives for another 20 years before they are executed. They can prepare their death by making a will and a last statement. Seans murder is still unsolved, and the killer is enjoying his life somewhere. The murderer(s) will probably murder another person some day.

I heard on the news last month, February 2000, where a 62 year-old grandmother, Betty Beets, was pleading for her life because she was on death row and was going to be executed. At first, I felt very sorry for her, but after doing research on her, I learned she had five husbands. She had already killed the fourth one, and served a prison sentence formurder, and she got out of prison early. She murdered the fifth husband-she shot him, and buried him in her back yard. Betty Beets was imprisoned a second time, and now was pleading for her life? It has been proven these killers do it again and again. The rate of recidivism is high for people who commit murder and crimes. I feel murderers should be executed the first time because chances are they will come out of prison and kill another innocent person again. We need stricter laws and swift death penalty. I belong to a group called Parents of Murdered Children (POMC). One of the woman came forward and told me how her husband shot and killed her five year-old daughter which she witnessed on her birthday. He attempted to kill the two-year old son, too, but fortunately, the gun he was using didnt go off a second time, because it was too old and the sons life was sparred. Her husbands intention was to kill the two children, and himself on her (the wifes) birthday. He said, if I cant have my children you wont either. Everything to her is still a nightmare. He (the husband) was sentenced to death, but committed suicide in prison. She recently learned that prior to the killing he had contracted someone $5,000 to burn their house while she and the kids were inside. She said she would have gone to see her husband being executed if he lived because she didnt want him out again. She said, To me, I think for the most part, I didnt care what happened to him. I just didnt want him to be out again after what he did. I told the District Attorney that I was afraid that he would get out and try to finish what he started (Email, personal communication- March 31, 2000). There are too many stories like these where people deserve the death penalty for killing other people. If they are released from prison, they will kill other innocent lives again. I believe life is sacred, therefore, one who takes a life should have his own life taken away, too. The Lord said in Exodus Thou shalt not kill!. It is one of the Ten Commandments. The laws today are too lenient. If there is no death penalty in your state, and a criminal kills someone, it is because he felt he could get out in 10 years or less from prison. There is no fear of death for him. They see other murderers in the state get away with murder, so they, too, can get away with it. They dont have to fear the death penalty. In fact, I read where a husband intentionally moved to a non death penalty state, so he could murder his wife and get away with it. Many murders are premeditated. People in the heat of passion should make it a point to evade the argument or the environment. Remember it could be one of your loved ones. Can you imagine what it would be like to have your loved one murdered? There are no words that can explain the loss of your loved one to murder. Call your state legislature representatives today to enforce the death penalty in your state!

Reasons For Capital Punishment 1. Prison: There are three purposes for prison. First, prison separates criminals for the safety of the general population. Second, prison is a form of punishment. Third and finally, the punishment of prison is expected to rehabilitate prisoners; so that when prisoners are released from prison, these ex-convicts are less likely to repeat their crimes and risk another prison sentence. The logic for capital punishment is that prisons are for rehabilitating convicts who will eventually leave prison, and therefore prison is not for people who would never be released from prisons alive. 2. Cost of Prison: Typically, the cost of imprisoning someone for life is much more expensive than executing that same person. However with the expensive costs of appeals in courts of law, it is arguable if capital punishment is truly cost effective when compared with the cost of life imprisonment. 3. Safety: Criminals who receive the death penalty are typically violent individuals. Therefore for the safety of the prisons guards, other prisoners, and the general public (in case a death row inmate escapes prison), then logic dictates that safety is a reason for capital punishment. 4. Deters Crime: There is no scientific proof that nations with capital punishment have a lower rate of crime, therefore the risk of the death penalty does not seem to deter crime. 5. Extreme Punishment: The logic is that the more severe the crime, then the more severe the punishment is necessary. But what is the most severe punishment: lifetime in prison or execution? I am not sure that anyone alive is qualified to answer this question. 6. Appropriate Punishment: It is commonly believed that the punishment of a crime should equal the crime, if possible. This is also known as "an eye for eye" justice. Therefore using this logic, the appropriate punishment for murder is death. 7. Vengeance: Some crimes are so horrific that some people think that revenge or retribution is the only option. This reasoning is not based on logic; but rather, it is based on emotions. Therefore, this reason should not be deemed a valid justification.

Pros And Cons Of Death Penalty

Death penalty or capital punishment has been debated over since ages and still remains a reality in a number of states across the world. U.S, India, China and many other countries grant capital punishment for the most heinous crimes, even as the human rights activists continue to take the bull by its horns every time a death penalty is issued. Executions are considered to be the ultimate punishment provided the crime committed also exemplifies ruthlessness in its extreme. The article attempts to view capital punishment from a more balanced perspective by dwelling at length on both sides of the coin. Read on to know the pros and cons of death penalty. Advantages & Disadvantages Of Capital Punishment Pros

y The cost of imprisoning a criminal, serving a life term or otherwise long term, is very expensive when
compared with the costs involved in execution of the same person. Capital punishment is, therefore, considered to be cost-effective. There are many who offer the logic that the more severe the crime, the harsher should be the punishment. Death penalty is seen as the most extreme form of punishment, which is generally reserved for the most heinous of crimes. The penalty should fit the crime and in extreme cases, extreme measures should determine the course of justice. It has been argued that capital punishment sets a chilling example for potential criminals and serves as an effective deterrent. It will dissuade criminals-in-the-making by instilling fear in their minds. Death penalty also ensures the safety of rest of the prison inmates as statistics establish that most of the capitally punished criminals are violent and prone to be unpredictable. In a volatile situation, they may endanger the safety of other prisoners. Imprisonment keeps the possibility of a hardened criminal coming out on parole and becoming a threat to civil society, a possibility which is put to rest by execution. There have been many instances of prisoners, out on parole, indulging in criminal behavior taking advantage of their conditional release.

y y

Cons

y While it is argued that capital punishment is cost-effective, most penalty cases are appealed in higher
courts, which incur more expenses than execution. The additional procedures and extra appeals thus bring down the cost-effectiveness of death penalties. There are many who argue that capital punishment is barbaric, cruel and blatantly inhuman, no matter how heinous the crime is. The state-sanctioned executions tend to justify the murder of the criminal and defeat the whole logic of death penalty being a fitting punishment for extreme crimes, such as murder itself. Some human rights propagators regard death penalties as a flagrant violation of a persons right to live. The right to live is a natural right, while the right to live with dignity is a state-granted right. How can a state trample over the natural right of a person to live? Capital punishment doesnt give a criminal the opportunity to be remorseful of his deeds. Neither does it treat those, who feel guilty for their crimes, a fair opportunity to improve their behavior. There has also been no concrete evidence that capital punishments have been able to deter potential criminals from committing felonies. Justifying death penalties in the name of discouraging future crimes seems to be too simplistic an argument to many.

y y