The financial argument doesn't hold up in advocation of ending capital punishment. It is by far more expensive to put up a criminal for the rest of his/her natural life (that means food, water, healthcare, etc.) than the cost of a vial of potassium chloride. that just doesn't make sense.
secondly, why would a killer be allowed the privelege of living? If he takes away that privelege from someone else, then why is it right for him to go on living? to abolish the death penalty would be a great folly and just an act of disrespect to the victim's family because they no longer have the victim and yet the perpetrator is able to live. How is that fair?
To abolish the death penalty is not only unfair but also dangerous; it puts society at risk. de Maistre himself, a liberal French philosopher of the 18th century, theorized that without capital punishment, society would be thrown into chaos. Whereas there once was a sentence for criminals to fear, there would be only the freedom for criminals to act, for they would know that they would not be put to death.
Also, the number of criminals that are put to death is relatively low. in 1994, only 257 were killed. to add to that, the arguement that the killings are inhumane is a fallacy. The exectutions were more than 50% done by lethal injection, which contains a chemical agent that paralyzes so the criminal FEELS NO PAIN as the KCL enters his bloodstream. That is by far more humane than what the criminal did to his victim(s).
the death penalty is a necessary part of society.
__________
If a body catch a body coming through the rye...