The use of capital punishment has been a permanent fixture in society since the earliest civilizations. It has been used for various crimes ranging from the desertion of soldiers during wartime to the more heinous crimes of serial killers. Past civilizations used execution very often because they did not have enough place and money for incarceration of criminals (Hood, 13). However, the mere fact that this brutal form of punishment has been the policy of many nations in the past does not subsequently warrant its implementation in today's society. And although the death penalty is legalized under some circumstances by some countries today, it is a wrong type of punishment, since it has no scientific proof of acting as a deterrent and no possibility of reformation, but has risks in terms of executing innocent people. Moreover, it damages public's trust in government and causes people to fear government. Therefore, none of the circumstances which governments usually bring in the foreground to justify death penalty could be a factor supporting the death penalty.
             The most common circumstance where the death penalty has been applied is the case of homicides. Here, one of the most paradoxical features of the death penalty debate appears. People on both sides see themselves as defenders of the value of life. In other words, 'Respect for life' seems the most important concept for being 'against' and 'for' the death penalty. The idea which is 'for' the death penalty says that executing murderers is the only way to show respect for victims' lives because the value of one's life can be evaluated only with the other's life. However, this argument is not based on logical supports and does not correspond with the fundamental aims of justice system. On the other hand, the idea which is 'against' the death penalty says that killing somebody is in turn a murder and do...