The debate over the death penalty continues to confront our society. The proponents of capital punishment believe that the death penalty serves as the ultimate justice and that it will, in the end, deter murderers and promote the sacredness of human life. Opponents of the death penalty view it as harsh, unfair, and contradictory. They see hypocrisy in punishing murder by engaging in murder. They believe that the best remedy is to show respect for human life by not engaging in state-sanctioned killing. In the end, both sides have powerful arguments that support their cases. The anti-death penalty argument, ultimately, is founded on flawed assumptions, because it ultimately trivializes human life by not taking a firm stand on it. This is an imperfect world, and there are no perfect solutions to murder, but the least society can do is take a "zero tolerance" position on the taking of human life.
             The proponents of the death penalty argue that it is the only real justice when it comes to dealing with murder. Their premise is that we live in a world where there are certain moral absolutes that have to be enforced. One of these absolutes is the sacredness of human life. Anyone that takes a human life, therefore, should be dealt the harshest punishment we can conceive of -- which is death. Ultimately, death penalty proponents believe that there is absolute evil, and that society must therefore deal with it in the most firmest way. The only punishment that fits the crime of taking a life is the killer's loss of life. The punishment, in other words, must fit the crime. (Gelernter)
             Supporters of the death penalty contend that moral values do
             not exist on their own. They must be promoted and supported by the society at large, just like a car needs to be maintained, or a farmer's soil needs to be fertilized. Capital punishment reminds everyone that our society holds life sacred and that it will not tolerate murder....