They believe that the mistake of convicting an innocent person is unlikely. .
Retentionists, or those who defend capital punishment, believe in the "eye for an eye" theory. They believe if someone can take a life then they don't deserve to live and thus their life should be taken as well. This theory, from their own personal beliefs, think that this is the 'only' way to protect our society as a whole when it comes to those who commit crimes, more specifically murders. Defending the death penalty is normal because they believe once a criminal always a criminal. This in turn includes that there are never any mistakes when it comes to convicting a criminal, meaning that they don't believe in the mistaking of convicting an innocent person, despite evidence. I can understand their way of thinking and respect their beliefs. I can honestly say that I would probably want a criminal to be sentenced to death if he or she killed someone I knew and loved, however I don't think I would actually be able to go through being a hypocrite of wanting to condemn someone to death. Retentionists acknowledge that, in this case, "killing" is the more obvious, logical way to deal with criminals and thus contributing to the deterring of crimes. .
Abolitionists counter argue that there is no indication that people who have committed capital crimes are more likely to commit other crimes than those who are guilty of lesser crimes" (Neumayer, 2007). Simply meaning there is absolutely no valid research given to support these claims. Those opposing the death penalty have strong beliefs and several arguments as to why they believe in abolishing capital punishment as opposed to life-imprisonment. Some of the issues consist of being immoral, racially and socioeconomically bias, cruel and unusual punishment, technological advances therefore leading to the consideration of abolishing capital punishment.
