The death penalty has been debated for many decades know and people are always arguing wether or not it is humane or not. The death penalty in many states is still legal but their have been a few states that have decided to ban such consuquence such as New york, New mexico, Washington and many more. There have been many bills that have tried to get the death penalty abolished from every state and many that have tried to do the opposite. We are now learning more and more about the effects the death penalty is having and if it effective or not but, the death penalty will always be a subject to debate between the two sides of the argument and both with very valid consernes on why they are correct.
On the con side of the debate on the death penalty their are many people that believe that the death penalty is a not humane way to go. They argue that there are many benefits to keeping the prisoners alive rather than taking their life. One such research done by the state of California suggests that it is actually more expensive to execute someone than keep them in jail their entire life time. The few minutes that it takes to kill someone actually costs more than keeping them imprisoned for the remainder of their life, that is crazy. They also claim that the death penalty has the ocassional slip ups where the felon might not actually die immediatly and end up suffering for a period of time, this is particualrlly a prevelent argument against lethal injections. There is also the rare cases where a felon will be executed and then later is found not guilty for whatever reason, they argue that if people were just sentenced to life in prison then they would still have a life to live if they were found not guilty and not sentenced to death, which there is no return from. There are many more smaller points that go along with the con side of this argument but on the other side there are just as many cases.
There are still a fair amount of people that agree with the death penalty and what it is bringing to the table. Their i the obvious argument that if someone has done a capital crime that has involved the death of another person, that they should have to give their life for taking another persons, this is often a term known as eye for and eye. They also claim that if these people are every free that they will kill again so we should take action against them and kill them before they ever get that chance the kill again. They also argue directly against the con side of the argument’s argument that the occasional slip up of the death penalty where the a felon might not die immediately is actually balanced by the benefits it brings to society by putting away another murderer, in other words if it doesn’t kill them immediately that is a rarity that they are willing to risk to get rid of another murderer.