One could argue that the death penalty can be used as a deterrent for other criminals to stop them from committing more serious crimes and that crime rates have dropped substantially since the past. However, in countries that still retain the death penalty, but have relatively low usage of it, it has shown that a deterrence effect from death penalties are almost non-existent because of its rarity of usage. This shows that if a deterrent effect were to be present, there would have to be even more executions, and that would be even worse for countries that barely use it. Furthermore, the death penalty does not deter serial killers due to the fact that many of these acts occur because of a bigger idea or belief behind their killings. The death penalty also does not deter sudden murders as those who kill suddenly do so without premeditation.
One reason the death penalty should be abolished because capital punishment is less effective compared to other forms of punishment like incarceration. This is because that sending someone to prison for life can give the same effects as the death penalty in the sense that it takes the criminal away from society without the necessity to kill someone. And what if the "criminal" was wrongly convicted and executed? Statistics show that between 1973 and 2005, 123 people have been released from death row due to the fact that new evidence was presented that proved their innocence. However the problem underlying wrongful executions is the fact that after one is executed, there is usually a lack of funds and motivation to keep a case open, so new evidence is not introduced to prove the convicted's innocence, and so a miscarriage of justice is unlikely to be filed. With incarceration this complication is never encountered due to the fact that if innocence can be proved, the prisoner is still alive and can still be exonerated.
Another reason that use of capital punishment should be limited or abolished is because of the fact that if a convicted criminal on death row, truly saw the errors of their ways and they genuinely changed themselves into a better person, there would be no chance for said criminal to be let out because of death row. However if that criminal was incarcerated instead of put on death row, the convicted might have a chance to reenter society as a better person. This is because most countries have a mandatory sentencing time, and if one completes their minimum sentence they have a chance to get out of prison.
Finally, is it morally right to punish someone, who, let's say has killed someone, by killing them? One could argue that the death penalty should be kept because it is some form of 'retribution', however in that case, I would not classify it as 'just'. Crimes that do not involve taking others' lives can also result in the death penalty in countries such as Malaysia, for example, anyone found having possession of a certain amount of drugs, can be executed. Ultimately I cannot simply change any reader's decision about whether the death penalty should be kept or not, as it is up to the reader to perceive how much they value a life. Desmond Tutu once said, "to take a life when a life has been lost is revenge, not justice.". Is the death penalty really a justice, or revenge?
References: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_debate
