van den Haag : "If and when discrimination occurs it should be corrected. Not, however, by letting the guilty blacks escape the death penalty because guilty whites do, but by making sure that the guilty white offenders suffer it as the guilty blacks do. Discrimination must be abolished by abolishing discrimination - not by abolishing penalties. However, even if this cannot be done, I do not see any good reason to let any guilty murderer escape his penalty. It does happen in the administration of criminal justice that one person gets away with murder and another is executed. Yet the fact that one gets away with it is no reason to let another one escape." Opponents also argue that murderers of white people are more likely to receive death penalty than murderers of black people but a statistical study by Stephen Klein of the RAND Corporation found neither the race of the victim nor that of the killer affect death-penalty sentencing.Opponents also argue that life in prison without parole is an alternative to death penalty. It is if only the criminals dont commit murders in the prison and dont kill guards and other inmates. For example in the Moore case in New York State James Moore in the year 1962 raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he will be sentenced to life in prison without parole. But according to the new laws formulated in 1982 he is eligible for parole after every two years. Thus, putting away a criminal in prison for life is not good because as long as he lives he can strike again. Its better to kill him for once and all.Considering all the above facts and arguments capital punishment is needed to ensure the safety and moral values of society. Certainly human lives are more important and thus we should not abolish capital punishment, but hold our country liable for properly implementing the death penalty upon those who deserve it. As Edward Koch...
