Thus, the idea of making our country a safe home for all good Americans by means of death to the 'bad' people is close to absurd yet very comforting. Fieser brings up an interesting analogy in his article that states, "capital punishment is to the political body just as self-defense is to the individual." Yet once again, there is a catch because within the principles of self-defense the primary goal is to escape and nothing more. While some situations do unfortunately lead to death, many do not, as it takes a mere one kick, one punch, or one spray of a chemical to escape. If a citizen kills another person, yet had other options that would have led to an outcome besides death, that person will find themselves in a serious conundrum. The death penalty can be paralleled to this, from which many argue that states abuse their power by jumping immediately to the worst 'outcome.'.
The Retributive Argument is based much more on vengeance than the betterment of society. It is established on the idea that "as a foundational matter of justice, criminals deserve punishment, and punishment should be equal to the harm done." These principles, more simply put, are lex talionis ('an eye for an eye') and lex salica (punishment through compensation) (Fieser). Supporters for the retributive argument, one of the strongest points for the justification of the death penalty, believe that if one kills a person they should then die themselves, it is a "what goes around comes around" situation. This is where much of the emotion becomes highly influential. Feelings of vengeance, revenge, helplessness, and anger play enormous roles in our society's view toward the death penalty. In many cases, our emotions rule over our morals creating a demand for our government to 'get even.' Is there then any real progression or is the government merely stooping to the killer's level? Since birth the majority of Americans are taught that 'two wrongs never make a right', and yet the government says that it does.