Capitol Punishment has been a very controversial and emotionally charged issue in the United State for over two hundreds years. Since we are talking about the irreplaceable act of taking a human being's life it's no doubt that this is a heated topic. In order to justify capitol punishment the prime considerations are; is it effective as a deterrent? Is it the most economical way to remove a danger from society? Why is the death penalty used as a means of punishment for crime? Is this just a way to solve the nations growing problem of overcrowded prisons, or is justice really being served? Is capitol punishment morally right? Throughout my paper I will be answering these questions and elaborating on an opposing standpoint of capitol punishment.
             Those who choose to support Capital Punishment are assuming that just because death is an absolute form of punishment, it will be a strong deterrent to crime. Yet, the US is the only Western nation that still allows the death penalty and we also have one of the highest crime rates (Bedau). During the 1980s, death penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000, while abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4 per 100,000 (Bryant). This data shows that a threat of Capital Punishment has no effect on crime in America. Furthermore, the Miami Herald reported that Florida, with one of the nation's largest death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence. The execution costs take in to account all the appeals and court hearings, not just the execution itself. This shows that not only is the threat of being placed on death row ineffective, but the act is much more expensive than just leaving the accused in jail.
             Supporters of Capital Punishment have various reasons for their opinions. Michael Bryant, a 30-year old columnist writer, posted some facts ...