the case concludes. (Bailey, 42) When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average murder rate per 100,000 population in 1996 among death penalty states was 7.1, the average murder rate among non-death penalty states was only 3.6. A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends as death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states. (Horwitz, 87) The second issue in the capital punishment debate is retribution, or the need for society to express sufficient condemnation for violent murders. Supporters of the death penalty contend that the only proper response to the most vile murders is the most sever punishment possible. Therefore, society should literally interpret the earlier mentioned,"An eye for an eye" principle. When an individual takes a life, the moral balance in society will remain upset until the killer's life is also taken. Although the death penalty opponents disagree, society should be able to express its outrage with a vile crime by inflicting capital punishment. They suggest that they are showing outrage for taking a life by talking the life of another. (Jacoby, 39) Use of the death penalty as intended by law could actually reduce the number of violent murders by eliminating some of the repeat offenders thus being used as a system of justice, not just a method of deterrence. Modern supporters of capital punishment no longer view the death penalty as a deterrent, but just as a punishment for the crime as one source stated, "...in recent years the appeal of deterrence has been supplanted by a frank desire for what large majorities see as just vengeance." (Bailey, 1994, 55) The third major issue is arbitrariness, determined by or arising...
