The first is that people who are against the death penalty say that it is immoral, and no person should be sentenced to death. Second, it has no place in a civilized society. Third, since the death penalty cannot be racially biased, it should be banished. Fourth, two wrongs don't make a right, meaning that there is really no benefit to taking another life because it won't bring back the person the criminal murdered. Fifth, the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment. Lawyers are paid an extensive amount of money to keep appealing to the courts. These appeals delay the date of procedure, costing more money for taxpayers. The sixth reason, which I think is the most important argument against, is that here is no real certain way of knowing if the right person is on trial for the crime. Occasionally people are released from jails that were wrongfully accused for a serious crime after spending years on death row. Death is irreversible and can be inflicted upon people who are innocent. This raises the question of just how many innocent people were put to death because of being framed or just mistaken identity or other reasons.
In terms of the Pro; there are actually some safeguards guaranteeing protection of those facing the death penalty. The safeguards for convicts are that the defendant cannot be insane, and the person's real or criminal intent must be present. Also, minors rarely receive the death penalty because they are not fully mature, not knowing the consequences of their actions. Lastly, the mentally retarded are very seldom executed. The reason for not executing in this case is that they often have difficulty defending themselves in court, such as problems remembering details, locating witnesses, and testifying credibly on their own behalf. These safeguards are to try to insure that justice will be served without having it suffer. The cost issue is debated by saying that if there were a limit on the number of appeals allowed, the cost of the death penalty would be greatly reduced.