The practice of capital punishment is as old as the government itself. For most of history, It has not been considered controversial. Since ancient times most governments have punished a wide variety of crimes by death. However, in the mid-18th century, social commentators in Europe began to emphasize the worth of the individual and to criticize government practices they considered unjust, including capital punishment. The controversy and debate over weather governments should utilize the death penalty continue today.

I believe that those that deterrence justifies the execution of certain offenders bear the burden of proving that the death penalty is a deterrent. The overwhelming conclusion from years of deterrence studies is that the death penalty is no more of a deterrent than a sentence of life in prison. William Brokers of Northeastern university states that society is brutalized by the use of the death penalty, and this increases the likelihood of more murder. States in the U.S. that do not employ the death penalty generally have lower murder rates than states that do (Hugo Adam Be dau of Tufts University, Experts from "The Case Against The Death Penalty"). The U.S., with the death penalty, has a higher murder rate than the countries of Europe or Canada, which do not use the death penalty. People that are for the death penalty believe that society has always used punishment to discourage criminals from unlawful action. they believe since society has the highest interest in preventing murder, it should use the strongest punishment available to deter murder, and that is the death penalty.

If murderers are sentenced to death and executed, potential murderers will think twice before killing for fear of losing their life, right? I completely disagree with this because most people who commit murders either do not expect to be caught or don't carefully weigh the differences between a possible execution and life in prison before they act. Frequently murders are committed in the moments of passion or anger, or by criminals who are substance abusers and acted impulsively. It is true that the death penalty is rarely used and takes years before a action is actually carried out. Although because most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment, during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended, many times they become sorry for their action.

Also once in prison those serving life sentences often settle into a routine and are less of a threat to commit violence than other prisoners. Prisoners who are given this sentence will never be released. Thus, the safety of society can be assured with out using the death penalty. If, however, sever punishment can deter crime, then long-term imprisonment is sever enough to deter any rational person from committing a violent crime. There is no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. For the people that purposely kill another life are not scared to die themselves.

They are putting everything on the line. If a murderer thinks that their life is so bad or not worth cherishing then they do not fear death. Because who is to say that death is not better then living. What happens after death is a mystery.

There may be a hell or there may also be another chance at earth. A few seconds of pain and a possibility of more after is much worse than a life time of suffering. So it is much more affective to give a criminal for sure consequences on earth then to excuse murder by more murder. So as a conclusion the does not prevent future murders only creates more death. Excusing death by death is just like the way we react when a child does something wrong. We may punish a child for what they did wrong and give them a chance to think about what they did wrong or you can send a child away forever only living them with more hatred in their hearts.