Capital Punishment can be agreed upon as the most severe punishment in which it takes away that which is the most valuable to oneself: one's own life. While it is a severe punishment, it is only used for the most monstrous of crimes: the unjustified taking of another person's life. Some philosophers object to capital punishment as morally unjustified or too extreme, and therefore argue that capital punishment should be abolished. These arguments are weak, and do not provide strong enough grounds to eliminate capital punishment. The reaction to murder that capital punishment provides demonstrates the seriousness of murder. It shows that the state and its people do not take murder lightly but rather that they regard it as a heinous crime that a severe punishment must be sentenced to serve justice. .
The usual arguments that state capital punishment should be abolished are inadequate and weak, not providing substantial claims for eliminating the death penalty. There are a few common arguments that I will briefly address their inadequacy. A commonly presented argument is that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. Gerald H. Gottlieb states that capital punishment has been found to violate the Eighth Amendment by ways of "gas chamber, gun, rope or electrical chair" (197). Today lethal injection is commonly used, which does not subject the criminal to any pain or torture. Lethal injection does not inflict physical pain or mental anguish to the criminal. Electrocution, gas chamber, hanging, and firing squad are still currently legal, but only used if requested by the prisoner. Another objection to capital punishment is that it takes away the life of a person, which is an inviolable value. When the criminal unjustly takes the life of an innocent person, he shows no value for life. Therefore his life has no value to himself either and can be taken away by the law. This demonstrates that the law regards life as the greatest possible value by acknowledging the innocent life that is taken unjustly.