a popular term when discussing the death penalty. This is a term which brings both sides of the death penalty argument together. Both the retentionists and the abolitionists agree that the notion of imposing the death penalty "because the wrongdoer deserves it" leaves an uneasy feeling with lawmakers and community leaders. This creates an image in society where a punishment is based on what a jury feels a criminal deserves as opposed to what is best for society. Retribution plays an important role for the friends and families of murder victims. They want the murderer to lose his/her life just as he/she took the life of someone they loved. Unfortunately, this is not always the best solution. If the crime was committed in the heat of the moment, perhaps due a momentary lapse of insanity, then there is a likely chance that the criminal can be rehabilitated. Why waste a life? Appeal trials leads to the next issue surrounding the death penalty, uncertainty. Putting a convicted criminal in jail is not a permanent action. They can always be set free if they are later found to be innocent. However, when a convicted criminal is killed, it is very unlikely that they will be able to be brought back if they are later found to be innocent. This bothers the legal community, as well as the families of the accused. When discussing whether or not a punishment fits a given crime, one must look at the punishment's effects not only on the criminal, but also society as a whole. Many studies on the effects of the death penalty have shown that capital punishment creates a false sense of security within a community. People feel better knowing that the death penalty is always an option for a severe crime, whether or not the punishment is actually used. The principles of retribution suggest that a murderer should be executed because he or she "deserves" or "has earned" the sentence of death. Those who base their opposition to the death penalty on moral grounds a...
