rgue that life is sacred and killing is always wrong, whether it is done by an individual or by the state. In addition, people have questioned whether we as individuals or as a society have the right to decide that another person must die. Speaking of justice being served, what happens when our justice system makes a mistake? One can hardly think of a worse fate than to be convicted of a crime on did not commit; therefore, it is not surprising that many abolitionists report that the risk of executing an innocent person influenced their position. A more extremist point of view on the death penalty deals with absolute nonviolence in society. "It is based on the belief that the sanctity of human life demands absolute nonviolence. On this view, killing of any kind, for any reason, is always and everywhere morally wrong." The obvious alternative to capital punishment is life in prison without the possibility of parole. This solution, however, leads to the argument that society is still supporting them while in prison. The family of the murder victim is still paying taxes, which in turn help pay for the food and shelter that the murderer is receiving at no cost. Is this the next-best solution if putting a criminal to death costs society more than keeping then in prison for life? Unfortunately, this is probably not the best solution due to jails that are currently overflowing with inmates and the lack of funding for new jails. There is also a lack of community support for new jails. Who wants a bunch of convicted criminals living in a jail their neighborhood? If keeping them locked up forever is not a viable solution, what about placing criminals in rehabilitation programs? This is a viable solution, but not always guaranteed to work. If a criminal is found to be legally insane, who pays for their rehabilitation? Again, the taxpayers end up paying for medication, doctors, food, clothing, and shelter. What would happen if a criminal, ...
