Con

The use of capital punishment is the premeditated and cold-blooding killing of a human by the state in the name of justice. It is cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. Such is like torture subjecting the individual to an extreme physical and mental assault. Capital punishment legitimizes an irreversible act of state violence. Eventually innocent lives will be taken. Capital punishment should be abolished worldwide unconditionally.

Is capital punishment a sound instrument for the state to punish crime ?

Pro

Capital punishment provides individual incapacitation of the criminal and as well as collective deterrence towards those who may be future perpetrators. Such clearly punishes the criminal and provides for standards in future cases (Reid, 2003). Deterrence is the number one reason that supporters cite. Twenty six percent of respondents claim lex talonis and 55% percent support the death penalty even if it does not act as a deterrent. The government would lose credibility and stability if it ceased to prosecute capital offenses. The state has an obligation in terms of human life to fulfill capital punishment.

Con

In the past ten years executions rose and the murder rate declined nationwide in the U.S.A. In reality states without the death penalty fared better than those with in reducing their murder rates. In 1990 the gap between the two groups was four percent. In 2000 the murder rate in pro death states was 35% higher than those without. In 2001 the gap was 37%. Murder is a local crime and costs are variable. North Carolina has spent $2.16 million per execution. Florida spent an extra $57 million dollars to facilitate 18 executions between 1973 and 1988. This is an average of $3.2 million per execution.

The human reason is fallible; the conduct of those persons in charge of dispensing with capital punishment is under scrutiny. Should the errors inherent in their acts as sentencing or executing an innocent person end the death penalty?

Pro

The government should apply all the laws equally to all persons. The civil contract between the government and its citizens has guaranteed the right of punishment to the perpetrator, to the immediate family, and society writ large for its self-defense and protection (Rousseau, 1968). The lack of cognition and behavior in those persons capacitated to represent the government and defendant however does not negate the taking of life. The taint of errors of those persons in dispensing with justice does not replace the unnatural and illegal act of murder. The errors of those persons pertain to such individuals and not to the victim who is already dead and corollaries. Those persons should face justice for their mistakes, not the persons and society whom have a right to justice under the standing law.