eart. When Riggs was asked why she killed her children, she simply stated they were an inconvenience. Also, she said she had been planning to kill them for two or three weeks so it was not a spur of the moment situation (www.prodeathpenalty.com). In this situation, I totally agree with the death penalty. The facts show that the woman should be put to death. She killed her children for no apparent reason, and she planned out their deaths. In this scenario, the death penalty works.A reason that the death penalty is supported is because executions deter others from murdering people. Studies have shown that each execution prevents about seven or eight people from performing a crime. The death penalty proves that it has a deterrent impact not by statistics, but by common sense and experience. Some acts that are committed are so unacceptable that society would take away someones life for committing them.The death penalty proves to society and the victims family that the taking of someones life is so awful that death is necessary. The taking of an innocent persons life is unacceptable. No one deserves to die for no reason. For reasons like were already stated, like escapes and lifelong vacations, murderers and rapists should be punished for their crimes, this is why they should not sit in jail. By rehabilitating them or teaching them a trade and letting them out, the murderer benefits, instead of feeling like they were punished. Also, no one would want a convicted criminal who is so called rehabilitated, to work for them. The criminals need to receive severe punishment to teach society that killing is wrong. This idea concedes with the idea of lex talonis. This is similar to the philosophy of Hammurabi. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." This means if you cut someones hand off, the fair punishment would be to have your hand cut off. This could also hold true for murders. If you kill someone, the only way that it would be...
