There have been many heated debates when it comes to the death penalty. Some people view it on a moral standpoint whereas others look at it from a criminal standpoint. Both sides of the death penalty will be viewed in this paper so that we will have a better understanding of it. Some of the main key points that will be discussed are deterrence, retribution, incapacitation, and cost.
When looking at the death penalty from a positive standpoint, you have to rely on the punishment aspect of the crime. According to Seiter (2011), the death penalty is a deterrent and that executing a few people saves many other lives. These people feel that if the government kills a person who has been committing multiple murders, they can save others from his/her wrath. On the other hand, those people that look at it from a moral basis, says that “the government never has the right of retribution by taking someone’s life” (Seiter, 2011). When it comes to deterrence, there is no credible evidence that says the death penalty deters crime.
Retribution is another area that can be viewed when discussing the pros and cons of the death penalty. You have those people who feel that the punishment should fit the crime so therefore, if you kill someone then you should be killed. This is also known as eye for an eye. Retribution can also be seen as a form of revenge for those who oppose the death penalty.
Incapacitation is defined as the act of making an individual incapable of committing a crime. According to those people who are for the death penalty, incapacitation is a great method because it is the only for sure way that a person will not kill again. No one is known to have come from the dead and commit other murders or violent crimes. Still those who oppose capital punishment feel that these people should not be killed because there is still a chance that an error was made in the justice system and the person could be innocent.
A big issue in this...