The death penalty is a direct and efficient penalty. True, it is not a harmonious thing, but it is a clear public statement. Innocent people will not just stand by and hold back when an unforgivable crime had been committed. Abolitionists proclaim the death penalty as immoral, but are these arguments true?.
The word morality is defined "the principles of right and wrong." As moral creatures, humans deserve praise for good deeds, and punishment for bad ones. Such punishment may range from a slap to death, the main issue is, whatever the punishment, it must fit the crime. Known as lex talion justice, or in common words, "to retaliate against them in the way they committed the crime." .
Abolitionists would immediately argue that to use such a justice, we must be prepared to rape rapists, beat family abusers, and burn down arsonist's houses. That is not true, for although the above-mentioned do deserved such punishment, it would be immoral and valueless for us to do so. So why is it different? Rape rapist will only cause someone else to degrade him or herself by doing it. It will not prevent the rapist from raping again. Executing murderers, however, prevents them from committing their crime again, and thus protects innocent victims. This good outweighs the negative aspects and therefore can justify the death penalty as moral.
Should a person argue that killing is always wrong, they must concede that killing in self-defense is unacceptable. There rarely is anyone, I believe, who would be willing to agree. Just sending the convict to prison is not a sufficient punishment, for the loss of freedom does not and cannot compare to a loss of life.
"The death penalty condemns the innocent to die." Another argument often brought up. The truth is; there is no proof that the criminals executed were innocent. Before any person executed, twelve juries have to decide that defendant is guilty. The possibility of an innocent executed is tiny, and continues decrease with the improvement of forensic science.