The idea that retributive justice is anything like the old "eye for an eye" adage is absurd. The legal system does not steal from the thieves and rape the rapists. The system is not set up to just kill the killers. Not all killers, not even most killers, are sentenced to the death penalty. Since 1972, about five thousand men have been given a death sentence and fewer then three hundred have been carried out (Kozinski and Gallagher 585). The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous cases where rehabilitation is not an option what so ever. If the system truly operated on an eye for an eye basis things would terribly different.
Another angle most commonly argued is the utilitarian debate. This debate considers the death penalty to be justified if it prevents criminals from habituating their crimes (Fieser sec 1). Edward Koch explains that in the years 1976 and 1977, eighty-five people that had been arrested for homicide in New York City had been previously arrested for the very same crime (Koch 560). I is very likely that any criminal guilty of a crime will repeat the crime. There is no exception here for murderers. How can we promote the most safety and save the most lives? It is the Death penalty that can accomplish this. All of our legal systems implemented by the government are intended to promote safety. .
Safety for all prison employees, other prisoners and the population outside of the institutions is of paramount importance. Anecdotal evidence is hardly ever enough to persuade an argument but in this case it is enough to raise a sincere doubt as to the probability and or likelihood that life in prison or rehabilitation of some kind is either appropriate or possible in all cases. Thomas Silverstein was serving time in a federal prison for murder. While in prison he killed again. He murdered three other inmates in 1979, 1981, and 1982 (Cassell par 3). He was serving three life sentences for these murders when he killed yet again.