First death penalty law was established in the Eighteenth Century B.C. It has been around for almost 4000 years. It clearly is a better way to define and uphold justice and human rights. Not just the rights of the offenders but of every human being. It protects innocent victims, serves as deterrent and in this economic world saves money for every taxpayer.

(Murder rate per 100,000 people.States marked in yellow have no death penalty statue.)



Death penalty acts as a deterrent. Texas has the highest homicide rate in 1996. But on 1997, it fell below Michigan. Gradually the rate is decreasing and in 2010, it was much lower than  in 1996. Also, it fell below Michigan. In Massachusetts, the homicide rate increased from 1996 when other states with death penalty decreases.

Some studies had claimed that the costs of death penalty are much higher than life without parole (LWOP). But these studies are incomplete.  They excluded some of the savings that death penalty brings.

 "Many opponentspresent, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least$2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ('LWOP') at acost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirelyfalse. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million morethan equivalent death penalty cases.” Dudley Sharp, Death Penalty ResourcesDirector of Justice For All (JFA).

Executing murders will save innocent lives and money. To insurers and economists, it is common to put value on life. FCC economist Dr. Paul Zimmerman finds that executions result in a huge cost benefit to society. "Specifically, it is estimated that each state execution deterssomewhere between 3 and 25 murders per year (14 being the average). Assumingthat the value of human life is approximately $5 million {i.e. the average ofthe range estimates provided by Viscussi (1993)}, our estimates imply thatsociety avoids losing approximately $70 million per year on average at thecurrent rate of execution all else equal."

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

The main reason we should bring the death penalty back is to prevent having more victims.  People with violent crimes such as aggravated robbery/ murder with deadly weapon usually receive life sentences. Not executing them caused more victims to die.

Martin Robles received only a 6 year sentence from Nueces County for 1 count of murder with a deadly weapon.  On November 12, 2002, he and his co-defendant J.Padron shot a 20 year old male and a 19 year male. He was then executed on 2003. If he was executed the first time, the two male victims may still be alive.

 Life sentence does not prevent them from committing more crimes either. Lee Andrew Taylor, received a life sentence for aggravated robbery on 1996. On January 4,1999, while serving his time at Telford Unit (Texas), he fatally stabbed an adult male offender and was then executed on 2000. Rogelio Cannady too received life sentence for robbery, murder with deadly weapon and murder. On October 10, 1993 he beat his cellmate with a steel lock attached to a belt and kicked repeatedly in the head with steel-toed boots. The victim died two days later and Rogelio Cannady was executed on 1997.

Prisons serve as a tool to isolate criminals to prevent them from committing more crimes, to punish criminals for committing crimes, to deter others from committing crimes and to rehabilitate criminals. Yet, if these murder offenders were not executed in their first offense, they are threats to other prisoners. It will be unfair for those other prisoners and should we also start to consider their safety and their rights?

Amnesty International works very hard to abolish the death penalty. To them, “death penalty is the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights.” People who strongly disagree on death penalty often raise the issue of human rights. Since when do we start to care so much about the murderer’s rights but not the victim?

The right to life. The right to life is the supreme right of the human being. It is basic to all human rights and without it all other rights are without meaning. The innocent victim’s life had been taken. His human rights had all been taken away. The murderer had taken the victim’s life and rights but when caught, ask people to respect his rights. When people are concerned that we might have convicted an innocent murderer, no one cares about the truly innocent victim. No one cares about if the murderer was to walk free, more innocent victims will die. But no one cares about victims, to those oppositions, victims are just numbers but the cold-blooded murderer is a vulnerable dying life.

A life for a life

"Most of us continue to believe that those who show utter contempt for human life by committing remorseless, premeditated murder justly forfeit the right to their own life."  -- Alex Kozinski, U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals