AFFIRMATRIVE SIDE:DEATH PENALTY

First we defined what is death penalty, the punishment of execution, administered to someone
legally convicted of a capital crime.
"offenses carrying the death penalty

Capital punishment is often defended on the grounds that society has a moral obligation to protect the safety and welfare of
its citizens. Murderers threaten this safety and welfare. Only by putting murderers to death can society ensure that convicted
killers do not kill again.

Second, those favoring capital punishment contend that society should support those practices that will bring about the
greatest balance of good over evil, and capital punishment is one such practice. Capital punishment benefits society because
it may deter violent crime. While it is difficult to produce direct evidence to support this claim since, by definition, those who
are deterred by the death penalty do not commit murders, common sense tells us that if people know that they will die if they
perform a certain act, they will be unwilling to perform that act.

If the threat of death has, in fact, stayed the hand of many a would be murderer, and we abolish the death penalty, we will
sacrifice the lives of many innocent victims whose murders could have been deterred. But if, in fact, the death penalty does
not deter, and we continue to impose it, we have only sacrificed the lives of convicted murderers. Surely it's better for society
to take a gamble that the death penalty deters in order to protect the lives of innocent people than to take a gamble that it
doesn't deter and thereby protect the lives of murderers, while risking the lives of innocents. If grave risks are to be run, it's
better that they be run by the guilty, not the innocent.

Finally, defenders of capital punishment argue that justice demands that those convicted of heinous crimes of murder be
sentenced to death. Justice is essentially a matter of ensuring that everyone is treated equally. It is unjust when a criminal
deliberately and wrongly inflicts greater losses on others than he or she has to bear. If the losses society imposes on criminals
are less than those the criminals imposed on their innocent victims, society would be favoring criminals, allowing them to get
away with bearing fewer costs than their victims had to bear. Justice requires that society impose on criminals losses equal to
those they imposed on innocent persons. By inflicting death on those who deliberately inflict death on others, the death
penalty ensures justice for all.

This requirement that justice be served is not weakened by charges that only the black and the poor receive the death
penalty. Any unfair application of the death penalty is the basis for extending its application, not abolishing it. If an employer
discriminates in hiring workers, do we demand that jobs be taken from the deserving who were hired or that jobs be
abolished altogether? Likewise, if our criminal justice system discriminates in applying the death penalty so that some do not
get their deserved punishment, it's no reason to give Iesser punishments to murderers who deserved the death penalty and
got it. Some justice, however unequal, is better than no justice, however equal. To ensure justice and equality, we must work
to improve our system so that everyone who deserves the death penalty gets it.
Further, the death penalty is not necessary to achieve the benefit of protecting the public from murderers who may strike
again. Locking murderers away for life achieves the same goal without requiring us to take yet another life. Nor is the death
penalty necessary to ensure that criminals "get what they deserve." Justice does not require us to punish murder by death. It
only requires that the gravest crimes receive the severest punishment that our moral principles would allow us to impose.
While it is clear that the death penalty is by no means necessary to achieve certain social benefits, it does, without a doubt,
impose grave costs on society. First, the death penalty wastes lives. Many of those sentenced to death could be rehabilitated
to live socially productive lives. Carrying out the death penalty destroys any good such persons might have done for society if
they had been allowed to live. Furthermore, juries have been known to make mistakes, inflicting the death penalty on
innocent people. Had such innocent parties been allowed to live, the wrong done to them might have been corrected and their
lives not wasted.

In addition to wasting lives, the death penalty also wastes money. Contrary to conventional wisdom, it's much more costly to
execute a person than to imprison them for life. The finality of punishment by death rightly requires that great procedural
precautions be taken throughout all stages of death penalty cases to ensure that the chance of error is minimized. As a result,
executing a single capital case costs about three times as much as it costs to keep a person in prison for their remaining life
expectancy, which is about 40 years.
Finally, the death penalty harms society by cheapening the value of life. Allowing the state to inflict death on certain of its
citizens legitimizes the taking of life. The death of anyone, even a convicted killer, diminishes us all. Society has a duty to end
this practice which causes such harm, yet produces little in the way of benefits.

Opponents of capital punishment also argue that the death penalty should be abolished because it is unjust. Justice, they
claim, requires that all persons be treated equally. And the requirement that justice bc served is all the more rigorous when
life and death are at stake. Of 19,000 people who committed willful homicides in the U.S. in 1987, only 293 were sentenced
to death. Who are these few being selected to die? They are nearly always poor and disproportionately black. It is not the
nature of the crime that determines who goes to death row and who doesn't. People go to death row simply because they
have no money to appeal their case, or they have a poor defense, or they lack the funds to being witnesses to courts, or they
are members of a political or racial minority.

The death penalty is also unjust because it is sometimes inflicted on innocent people. Since 1900, 350 people have been
wrongly convicted of homicide or capital rape. The death penalty makes it impossible to remedy any such mistakes. If, on the
other hand, the death penalty is not in force, convicted persons later found to be innocent can be released and compensated
for the time they wrongly served in prison.

The case for and the case against the death penalty appeal, in different ways, to the value we place on life and to the value
we place on bringing about the greatest balance of good over evil. Each also appeals to our commitment to"justice": Is justice
to be served at all costs? Or is our commitment to justice to be one tempered by our commitment to equality and our
reverence for life? Indeed, is capital punishment our duty or our doom?

PROS
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to capital crimes state
that such a harsh penalty is needed to discourage people from murder and terrorism.
Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed as retribution argue that “an
eye for an eye” is appropriate, that the punishment should match the crime, and that
the penalty is needed as a moral balance to the wrong done by the criminal.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is needed to bring about closure and
solace to victims’ families argue that the finality of the death penalty is needed for
families to move on and not live in fear of the criminal getting out of prison.

Proponents who argue that the death penalty is a moral punishment state that “an
eye for an eye” is justified to promote a good and just society than shuns evil.
Proponents of keeping the federal death penalty argue that justice must be carried
out to deter crime and offer closure to families, and that the federal government has
an obligation to enact the sentences handed down by the courts.

Positive Aspects of Death Penalty

We all are aware that the death penalty is one of the extreme punishments for criminals. The
criminals committing such unlawful crimes are the offenders of law and are sentenced to death.
Some positive aspects of the death penalty ‘

 Prevent Reoccurrence of Crimes - Death penalty are given to criminals committing the
brutal offense. This develops a fear in the minds of people and stops them from
reoffending. The thought of ending of life or destruction of one’s life prevents them from
such violent crimes. This will help in lowering the crime rates.
 Satisfaction to the Family of Victims - The execution of the death penalty of the criminal
brings a feeling of satisfaction to the family of the victim of the offense. They can further
step on in their lives.
 End of Brutal Criminals - Death penalty helps in cleaning up the violent criminals from
society. They cannot be trusted if granted Life imprisonment as they can cause harm to
others. It is also costly to keep them in prison for the whole life. Why should such criminals
survive on our money? Thus it is the best way of getting rid of such criminals from our
society.

death penalty should be upheld because people that have taken other peoples lives do not deserve to
be able to live. if we keep them in prison they might find there place and start to enjoy it. it like school,
we hate it when we first get there but as the year goes on we make friends and get accustomed to it.
they should be put on death row so they cannot have the pleasure of living to see another day.

.Deterrence. Capital punishment is often justified with the argument that by executing convicted
murderers, we will deter would-be murderers from killing people.