meals a day, they have cable television, and they can lift weights all day long. How is that deterring people away from murder? It may deter a few, but the fear of your life ending in a gas chamber or an electric chair is a better deterrent. If we deter only a couple people from committing murder by keeping the death penalty around, those couple of lives saved are more important than keeping alive convicted murderers because killing them would not deter others. We should also take into account that killing another person is morally wrong, except when that person took the life of another person. We need the death penalty around to scare away potential murderers. Many people try to say that, "a person sentenced to death suffers more than his victim suffered, and that this suffering is undue according to the lex talionis (rule of retaliation)."(Haag 277) How do we know if a person sentenced to death suffers more then his or her victim did. We should not be concerned if a murderer suffers a little bit. He or she committed terrible immoral crime. The Criminal deserves his or her punishment no matter how painful it may be. What about the victim, did he or she deserve the pain and suffering inflicted upon them? Also, when we punish a criminal we are not punishing him or her to revenge, offset, or compensate for the suffering the victim had to go through. "Punishment is to vindicate the law and the social order undermined by the crime." (Haag 277) We have laws that everyone is expected to abided by, and when a person commits a horrible immoral crime like killing another they should be punished. They should be put to death and that should be that. Yes, there are circumstances that should be considered. Did the person that committed the murder plan the crime out. If the answer is yes then that person should receive the death penalty. If the person killed some one on accident like running them over with their car they should n...
