This is an extremely controversial question in .
The number of people who are for it still believe in the saying, " an eye for an eye, a tooth for a .
tooth." These are the people who feel if you intentionally take the life of someone else, then yours should be taken .
as well. But then there are the other number of people who feel the death penalty should be banned because of its .
cruel and unjust way of punishment. Should we keep it or not? And if it is kept, how do we determine who should be .
sentenced to death? An easy way to answer these questions is to totally nullify capital punishment completely. .
One reason why the death penalty is so controversial is because many feel its cruel ways of punishment are .
unnecessary, even if the crime is murder, whether it be premeditated or unintentional. They believe there are other .
ways of condemnation besides execution. In the case of an unintentional death feelings are that the perpetrators .
should have the right to live, but have to face each day with the fact that they killed someone weighing on their .
conscience. On the other hand, such as with a voluntary murder, the ideas are somewhat similar. They believe the .
murderer doesn't deserve the death penalty. Chances are if a person is insane enough to kill another human being in .
the first place, they aren't going to care what happens to them. They .
realize that their execution, in most cases, is going to be short and painless. This isn't a just punishment for someone .
who has inflicted severe pain upon another life. Our court system, after initiating a life sentence without parole, .
should not offer these killers the comforts they have in jail. They should be treated more or less like animals. In .
short, let the ones who institute a crime unwillingly live, but do not let the punishment be as severe as it would for a .
voluntary criminal. .
There are a vast number of people who believe that increasing the use of the death penalty will abate the crime rate.