The death penalty is a topic that creates a great deal of controversy in the United States today. Many states have even done away with capitol punishment. What makes the death penalty so controversial? Quite frankly, I fail to see why anyone would not overwhelmingly support the death penalty. In supporting the death penalty however, there are certain questions that must be answered.
             Can the death penalty be seen as the work of a vigilante? While on the surface this may seem like the case there are underlying factors that negate this theory. A vigilante is one who assumes the roles of jury and executioner on his own and carries out the sentence as he sees fit, which is obviously wrong. With a vigilante the accused has no opportunity to defend himself or prove his innocence. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, allows the accused to have many chances to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his innocence. If the accused is found guilty in the original trial there will be several chances for him to attempt to have the conviction overturned. Granted, the process is not perfect and the execution of an innocent man is extremely tragic. However, it is my belief that the system is a very effective way to deter people from committing the most grievous of crimes.
             What gives states the right to terminate the lives of its citizens? To answer this question one must first take a look at who is being terminated. A person who has blatantly taken the life of another, committed aggravated rape of a women or a child, or one who has been proven to be a serial child molester is, in my opinion, not a human being at all. Their very existence is a threat to all innocent people no matter where they may be. They have destroyed or severely damaged the lives of countless numbers of people and have shown no remorse for their actions. They are the scum of the earth and do not have the right to continue in their existence. The state is
             ...