The argument is that we as a society cannot condone such actions, and by using the death penalty we are doing so. In essence we are saying it is all right to kill those who have killed. This may sound somewhat reasonable, however, it also conveys the message that in some situations murder is not a bad thing. Is revenge so important in our society that we are willing to make this statement?.
Due to the diverse background of values and beliefs in our society the issue of morality can also be used to fight for the death penalty. Is it wrong to kill? The answer is a resounding yes. Do we as a society make it a practice to exercise punishment for the wrong doings in our world? The answer? Also, yes. With this in mind, should we not consider it our responsibility as a society to do all that is in our power to keep crimes as horrific as murder from occurring? What kind society would allow its members to live in fear of those who are willing to take a life? A society such as this should not be considered free or just.
We know that where there is philosophy there is also practicality. No argument should be viewed using only morals and ethics. Who can say which belief is right. Our values are for the most part relative. Because of this we must learn to see the practical sides of an argument. As with the issue of morality, practicality is also offered from both sides.
When it comes to issues of practicality money always seems to be at the top of the list. It seems likely that it would cost more to keep someone in prison for life than to execute them. However, this particular case is somewhat deceiving. The average cost to obtain and carry out the death sentence is approximately 2.2 million dollars (Johnson, 1990). It has been estimated that this is more costly than the incarceration of a prisoner for one hundred years (Johnson, 1990).
Activists for capital punishment argue that the majority of this expense is due only to the appeals process.