Evil presents itself in millions of ways; a man killing another man is just one form of it. That being said, does the man that killed the other deserve to continue living after committing the horrid act? Answering this question requires a swift response that most will not be capable of delivering. Some will argue that by killing a murderer you become the murderer, but that is not true. People hate to admit that murder is justifiable; if someone is defending themselves or their family, everyone justifies it by saying, "Oh! It wasn't their fault; they were under attack." Yet, when a person that has brutally murdered many people goes through due process and is sentenced to death, it is suddenly "inhumane" to legally kill a person. Whether one agrees with it or not, the death penalty is a form of legal action protecting the general public, and should not be removed.
When someone kills their fellow man in cold blood, they deserve the punishment given to them by the court. America has a policy called due process; this policy states that all convicted of a crime have the right to a trial by jury. In due process, the eighth amendment — the punishment must fit the crime committed — is utilized; therefore, even serial killers are given a fair chance to receive life in prison rather than the death penalty. It is pretty much a toss-up for which they will get; their fates are decided by the jury, and some juries are softer than others. Separating the United States from other countries with capital punishment is the guaranteed endless process of appeals the defendant will be awarded. Capital punishment is not a quick process in America, and that is what makes it constitutional and humane.
That being said, the death penalty is not cheap; it takes plenty of money to execute someone, but it's worth it. Those against the death penalty argue the point that executions are costly, and they are right; it does cost a good chunk of change to execute someone. Those people often forget that housing these criminals costs quite a bit more than an execution. If an inmate is in prison for life, the state has to pay for clothing, bathing, food, and health care for that person — for the rest of their life. With the death penalty, the state saves plenty of money. It protects the innocents in society and holds society’s heinous criminals accountable.
Many may refute it, but the death penalty is an effective punishment; it also tends to decrease murderous activity. Some studies show that in years executions occur an average of around 14 murders do not take place. That being said, capital punishment does have an effect on the actions of potential criminals; it deters them from harsher crimes as to avoid harsher punishment. The criminals put on death row have to face their own mortality, and they receive endless opportunities to appeal before a judge and jury; however, their victims did not get that chance. Victims of these heinous crimes suffered, and they did not get a chance to say their goodbyes; their treatment was inhumane, but the oppressors are treated with respect and dignity? These being the ways of the American justice system separating the United States from countries like Iran.
While the death penalty does kill the person, the word murder differs from the action of execution. Murder implies the victim is innocent, however, if someone is sentenced to death, they are not innocent; they are criminals. Progressives say it will not stop the crimes from occurring, but that is stating the obvious; some people are just inherently evil that they could not care less about being captured and put to death. Yet, statistics show that some of the crimes that could occur do not; the death penalty does distort the annual crime rate. Criminals sentenced to death deserve what they have coming to them; they had to do something horribly inhumane in order to be placed on death row, but at least they can no longer hurt innocents.
Even with that knowledge, people are still protesting the death penalty all over the country; they claim the cost is too high or that the system is broken. California estimates that it could save around $100 million in the first few years. They have obviously forgotten that, without death row, the plea bargain would go out the window; the murderers are not going to plead guilty in order to not get on a death row that no longer exists. What are prosecutors going to threaten them with? Life in prison? Life in prison is not bad; inmates have so many benefits. Prisoners have luxuries that not even some middle-class persons possess: internet access, guaranteed time outdoors, phone calls, conjugal visits, and even weddings. How is that any punishment for the life they took away? The answer is simple; it is not a punishment. Protesters often say that race plays a role in sentencing, and, while they are not entirely wrong, there is nothing the court system can do about it. Sentences decided by juries are not the fault of the courts; if a person chosen is harsher on the defendant because of their race, no one knows. It is impossible to tell if a juror is being discriminatory in court based on race or the crime committed. Claiming more of African Americans than Caucasian Americans are sentenced to death row, protesters clearly did not see that only ten of the 28 people executed in 2015 were black.
Society forgets that not all states have the death penalty and the ones that do don’t always use it. In 2015, executions fell to their lowest amount since the 1970's; some inmates on death row even got exonerated last year, and one of those exonerates was from Mississippi. Part of the decrease is due to drug manufacturers refusing to send drugs they believe will be used for execution purposes. Other states simply just don’t want the protests or list of appeals that accompany the death sentence. Therefore, regardless of whether one agrees with legal executions or not, the rate of which they are taking place is dropping; the question of, “Should the executions be decreasing?” is entirely a moral debate that one must decide for themselves.
